Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 3) Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Aberdeen Harbour Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]

Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Oral Answers to Questions — S.S. "PATRICIA."

Major GLYN: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Board of Trade or the Ministry of Shipping will cause immediate inquiry to be made into the voyage of the hired transport "Patricia," now at Liverpool, where she arrived on the 18th instant, having occupied nearly six weeks to complete the voyage from Bombay?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Colonel Leslie Wilson): I have been asked to reply, and would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given to him on the 3rd instant.

Major GLYN: Under whose auspices is this vessel sailing, and is she, in fact, a hired transport?

Colonel WILSON: I explained to my hon. Friend in my answer of the 3rd instant that the "Patricia" is not a hired transport, but a surrendered German steamer being managed for the Government by a private firm.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

TRADING NAMES (CITIES AND TOWNS).

Sir S. ROBERTS: 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider the desirability of introducing general legislation enabling cities and towns, through their local authorities, to exercise some jurisdiction over the use of the name of a particular city or town, and so prevent the user of such name by mushroom traders, leading persons to believe that the concern is one of enormous importance; and will he receive a deputation from the Sheffield Chamber of Commerce to lay the facts more fully before him?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Robert Horne): The bond fide use by a trader of the name of his place of business is recognised by Section 44 of the Trade Marks Act, and there would, I think, be considerable objection to any undue restriction of such a right. I understand that the proposal of my hon. Friend was submitted to, but it was not recommended by, the Merchandise Marks Committee. In these circumstances I do not think that I could usefully receive a deputation on the subject.

Sir S. ROBERTS: As this is a matter of great importance to large cities, will my right hon. Friend not be prepared to receive either a small deputation or a written statement?

Sir R. HORNE: I shall, of course, be very glad to do anything to facilitate the matter as far as my hon. Friend is concerned, but I think, in the first place, his constituents might put before me a written communication on the subject, and then I will consider whether a deputation could do any good.

Mr. A. SHORT: Why does the right hon. Gentleman refuse to receive a deputation of so important a character as this?

Sir R. HORNE: I do not refuse to receive a deputation. All I have said is that I do not think in the meantime a deputation would further the matter at all, but I shall understand after a written communication has been made.

GERMAN SILK GOODS.

Mr. REMER: 3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the great importation of manufactured
silk goods into the United Kingdom from Germany at prices, owing to the depreciated mark, much lower than the cost of production in this country; whether he is aware that there is great unemployment and short time in this industry; and whether he can now state what policy he intends to pursue in order to remedy this state of affairs?

Sir R. HORNE: I am aware the position in the silk trade is far from satisfactory, and that certain quantities of silk goods are being imported from Germany, but, so far as I can judge from the official statistics, they cannot be considered large as compared with the imports from Germany before the War. The imports of silk goods from Germany forms a very small proportion of the whole importation, most of it coming from other countries.

Mr. REMER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the prices of German silk manufactured goods are exactly half the price of English manufactures?

Sir R. HORNE: I am not aware of the figures my hon. Friend uses, but the imports from Germany are really infinitesimal as compared with the importation from France, for example.

Mr. REMER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that British manufacturers have put down very great machinery during the period of the War, and the men employed on these machines will be out of work unless something is done quickly?

Sir R. HORNE: I am not aware of the last fact to which my hon. Friend refers, but I repeat that the importation from Germany at present is really infinitesimal as compared with that from other countries.

Mr. REMER: The probabilities are that they will be very much increased in the next few months?

Sir R. HORNE: I am not aware of that.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Is manufactured silk supposed to be a key industry?

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that great unemployment is caused by the importation of manufactured silk goods from America, which puts a 60 per cent, duty on our
goods and sends hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of manufactured goods into our country?

Sir R. HORNE: Of course we cannot debate these matters by question and answer. The question refers to Germany and I repeat that German imports are very small at present. The imports from America are also very small compared with what they are from France.

Mr. SHORT: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why it is that the cost of these articles has not been reduced to consumers in this country?

Mr. REMER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the cost of English manufactures is exactly double the cost in Germany?

STEELS AND BUSKS CO., LTD.

Major Sir K. FRASER: 5.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that during the War the Steels and Busks Company, Limited, was started in Leicester, and but for their intervention several of the English corset manufacturers would have closed down; that before the War this industry was almost entirely in the hands of Germany, certain quantities coming over from America; that the Steels and Busks Company, Limited, have beaten the American competition, even without taking into consideration the rate of exchange, but that it is absolutely impossible for them to compete against prospective German competition, although the Germans do not at present appear to be delivering these goods to any extent to this country; that they are attracting the markets nearest to them first, for instance, Sweden, where these goods can be bought 30 per cent, cheaper from Germany; and that the British manufacturers foresee in the near future an attack on our market which may, and probably will, cause factories here to close down unless the Government comes to the assistance of the industry; and what action does he propose to take and when?

Sir R. HORNE: I am aware of the circumstances in which the company named by my hon. and gallant Friend was started. As I have already informed him, the effect of exchange fluctuation on industry is being carefully considered.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is corset-making considered a key industry?

Sir K. FRASER: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider the question of introducing a Bill which will affect the financial exchanges?

Sir R. HORNE: I am considering that very topic now.

MANUFACTURED GOODS (IMPORTS).

Mr. REMER: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give the figures covering the value of the importation of German-manufactured goods for the first 10 months of 1912, 1913, 1919, and 1920?

Sir R. HORNE: The value of articles wholly or mainly manufactured registered as consigned from Germany and imported into the United Kingdom during the first nine months of the years specified was approximately as follows:

£


1912
36,400,000


1913
41,000,000


1919
43,000


1920
17,191,000

The figures for 1912 and 1913 are estimates based on annual totals, and during 1919 trade was permitted only as from 12th July.

Mr. REMER: Can the right hon. Gentleman really say, in view of these figures, that German imports are in finitesimal?

Sir R. HORNE: I did not say imports from Germany are infinitesimal. I said with regard to silk goods they are infinitesimal. I think the figures I have just given show at least that the imports at present do not approach what they were before the War.

Mr. SHORT: Have the exports from this country to Germany during the years mentioned exceeded to a large extent the imports from Germany to this country?

Sir R. HORNE: I really cannot carry all the figures in my head. I am afraid the hon. Member will have to put down a question on the subject.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: Is it not a fact that the commerce between England and Germany is very much below the commerce between England and Ireland?

Mr. REMER: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the value of imported foreign manufactured goods in each month of this year; and whether he can at the same time quote the number of unemployed on the last day of each month?

Sir R. HORNE: The answer will involve a statistical table, and, with the hon. Member's permission, I will have this published in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

BRITISH EXPORTS (GERMANY).

Mr. A. SHAW: 10.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can furnish a statement showing the character, quantities, and values of the goods, wholly or mainly manufactured, exported from the United Kingdom to Germany during the nine months ended 30th September, 1920?

Sir R. HORNE: The answer will involve a statistical statement, and, with my hon. Friend's permission, I will have the particulars published in the OFFICIAL REPORT as soon as they have been prepared.

IMPORTS (UNITED STATES).

Sir A. FELL: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the increased imports from the United States of America during the month of September and the increased balance of trade against this country; and if he will examine the nature of the imports and see whether much of them could be done without or procured from some other source, and consider whether this country is prepared to make sacrifices and suffer inconveniences if the result would be to raise the value of the £, and so cheapen the cost of living?

Sir R. HORNE: I have examined the figures of our foreign trade with care, but I do not find that the excess of import has been growing during the current year as my hon. Friend appears to suggest. On the contrary, it has been decreasing. The large volume of imports from the United States of America during September, to which the hon. Gentleman refers, mainly consists of the usual seasonal importation of wheat and flour Attention has been given to the problem of procuring necessary imports in the way most advantageous to our general trade position, but my hon. Friend will doubt-
less see that a transference of purchases from one market to another, if not carried out by traders in their own interests, would involve a very onerous degree of Government control.

Sir A. FELL: Could not the very large purchases the Government has made in the Colonies and other places be continued or increased instead of buying these things in America, so as to improve the exchange, which there is no doubt is against us?

Sir R. HORNE: Our purchases, as far as the Government is concerned, have been made in the most fruitful markets.

GERMAN DYE-STUFFS.

Mr. A. SHAW: 11.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that French textile manufacturers are, and have for long been, receiving large quantities of German dyes, which enable them to compete with our textile manufacturers on favourable terms in foreign markets; and whether, in view of the importance to this country of its export trade in textiles, he can say whether we are receiving by way of reparation or otherwise an adequate proportion of the German output of dyestuffs?

Sir R. HORNE: I have no reason to suppose that the French consumers of dyestuffs have been placed in an unduly favourable position, as compared with British consumers, in respect of supplies from Germany, or to doubt the adequacy of the supplies being received from that country by way of reparation and ether-wise. If my hon. Friend has any concrete evidence to the contrary effect I should be glad to consider it.

Mr. DOYLE: 19.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that German dyestuffs are imported into the United Kingdom, not only on direct registration, but also through countries whose frontiers are contiguous with those of Germany; and whether he can state, or estimate the total quantity of synthetic dyestuffs of German origin imported into the United Kingdom in the first nine months of the year?

Sir R. HORNE: I am aware that a certain proportion of the exports of German dyestuffs is through Belgium and Holland, and it may be assumed for
practical purposes that the whole of the exports of dyestuffs consigned to the United Kingdom from these two countries is of German origin. The total quantity of synthetic dyestuffs and intermediate products imported into the United Kingdom from Holland, Belgium and Germany in the first nine months of the year was 2,986 tons. A small proportion of the dyestuffs consigned from Switzerland to this country is also probably of German origin, but it is not possible to form any reliable estimate of the amount. Of the amount referred to, 877 tons is in respect of reparation supplies from Germany.

Mr. DOYLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say, in view of the very large increase in the imports of German dyestuffs, what is the position of the subscribers to the British Dye Corporation who were induced to subscribe upon the condition that foreign dyestuffs would be prohibited?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a new question. The hon. Member had better put it down on the Paper.

GLASS (IMPORTS).

Mr. A. SHORT: 12.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the total volume of imports of glass goods from foreign countries since the Armistice?

Sir R. HORNE: The total value of glass and manufactures thereof registered as imported into the United Kingdom during the period December, 1918, to October, 1920, inclusive, was £10,599,381. Included in this total is the value of the imports from British Posessions as well as of those from foreign countries.

Mr. A. SHORT: 13.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the total imports of glass goods from foreign countries during 1913?

Sir R. HORNE: The total value of glass and manufactures thereof registered as imported into the United Kingdom from foreign countries in the year 1913 was £3,448,983. The hon. Member will keep in mind that values are very different now from what they were in 1913.

Mr. SHORT: Does that include the imports from the Colonies?

Sir R. HORNE: Only from foreign countries.

Mr. SHORT: Why has the right hon. Gentleman made a distinction between this reply and the reply to the previous question?

Sir R. HORNE: Because a distinction was made in the question.

Mr. SHORT: It was foreign countries in both cases.

Sir R. HORNE: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. I am not certain whether this reply differentiates in that respect or not.

Captain TERRELL: 16.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can give the glass imports into this country in the first half of the present year as compared with the two half-years of 1919?

Sir R. HORNE: The total values of glass and glassware registered as imported into the United Kingdom in the periods specified were as follow: —

£


First six months of 1919
700,815


Second six months of 1919
2,757,112


First six months of 1920
4,354,704

Captain TERRELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the increase in the import of glass is causing a great deal of unemployment in this country?

Sir R. HORNE: I am not aware of that.

Mr. REMER: Has the right hon. Gentleman made inquiries whether this glass can be made in this country?

Mr. LYLE SAMUEL: Is it not a fact that at this moment more people are employed in glass making in this country than for many years, and is it not the policy of the Government to encourage some of these imports to give an overdue relief to the consumer?

Mr. J. JONES: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us that prices will decline as a result of these increased imports?

GERMAN 1MPORTS (RATE OF EXCHANGE).

Mr. TERRELL: 24.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the rate of exchange at which the value of German imports this year, £17,000,000, is arrived at?

Sir R. HORNE: The value of imports is declared by the importers in terms of sterling, on importation.

Mr. TERRELL: Has not that figure some relation to the value in the country of origin?

Sir R. HORNE: Of course, it has some relation, because every figure has some relation to every other figure. It is the value at the time the consignment is made.

Mr. TERRELL: Does the right hon. Gentleman not take steps to check these values. Must not this figure of £17,000,000 be considerably higher?

Sir R. HORNE: I do not think so.

Mr. REMER: Is it not a fact that owing to the depreciated mark, the value of these goods is nearly ten times as great?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Not here.

Sir R. HORNE: I am afraid the hon. Member (Mr. Remer) does not quite realise what "value" means.

GAS MANTLES.

Mr. TERRELL: 62.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that natural monazite sand from India is supplied to German manufacturers as raw material for the manufacture of incandescent gas mantles and ultimately that such gas mantles are exported to this country, and that in consequence of the collapsed exchange it is impossible for British manufacturers to compete; that one British firm has discharged its workpeople and is confining its activities to the sale of German-made mantles; and what course he proposes to take in the matter?

Sir R. HORNE: I have no information as to the extent to which German manufacturers are at present obtaining supplies of natural monazite sand from India, but I am having inquiries made and will inform my hon. Friend of the result. The whole question of collapsed exchanges, which is one of very great difficulty, is receiving the earnest attention of His Majesty's Government. I shall be glad to consider any detailed information which my hon. Friend can supply as to the particular firm mentioned in the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

TRADK DEBTS (GERMANY).

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. HOPE: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the 5 per cent, interest charged to British subjects on their trade debts to Germany is paid to the German creditors; and if German debtors to British traders also pay 5 per cent, interest on their debts?

Sir R. HORNE: The interest charged to British debtors is credited to the German Clearing Office, but is retained by the British Clearing Office, and forms part of the fund available to meet the claims of British creditors. The answer to the latter part of the question is in the affirmative.

TURKEY.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 60.
asked the Lord Privy Seal when the Debate on the Turkish Peace Treaty will be taken?

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): I cannot name a definite date, but we expect to take it during the present Session.

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the extreme urgency of ratification?

Mr. BONAR LAW: We all realise its importance, but my hon. Friend knows how pressed for time the House has been.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Is it not important that ratification should take place in order that the War may be brought to an end?

Mr. BONAR LAW: That is only theoretically true. The War will not in effect be brought to an end by the ratification.

AIRCRAFT DESTROYED.

Sir W. DAVISON: 25.
asked the Prime Minister what is the estimated value of commercial and naval ships and airships which were to be handed over to the Allies under the Treaty of Versailles which have been wilfully and maliciously destroyed by the Germans; what was the estimated share of Great Britain in the property destroyed; and what additional reparation has been secured in lieu of the property thus wilfully destroyed?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): There has been no destruction of naval ships since the Treaty of Versailles. With regard to airships destroyed, their value cannot be accurately estimated until the plans have been surrendered, but the airships will either be replaced, or compensation exacted in some other form.

AGREEMENTS AND PROTOCOLS (PUBLICATION).

Mr. HOGGE: 26.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can state when he will carry out his undertaking to publish all agreements, protocols, etc., relating to the execution of the Treaty of Versailles?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): The undertaking given by the Prime Minister in the House on 27th July was conditional upon our obtaining the consent of the several Allied Governments to such publication. Negotiations for this purpose are proceeding.

Mr. HOGGE: Can the hon. Gentleman say the result of the negotiations?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put down another question

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURAL RATES ACT, 1896.

Mr. HUGH MORRISON: 27.
asked the Prime Minister what steps the Government propose to take in view of the fact that the Agricultural Rates Act of 1896 expires on the 31st December; and whether, in view of the burden of the rates on agriculture, he will consider the advisability of adequately increasing the grant that was fixed by that Act?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Dr. Addison): The period of operation of the Agricultural Rates Act is extended annually by the Expiring Laws Continuance Act, and the Act is included in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill now before the House. I cannot hold out any expectation of an increase of the grant under the Act.

Oral Answers to Questions — BATUM.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 28.
asked the Prime Minister whether any negotiations have been proceeding be-
tween His Majesty's Government and the Government of Georgia for the lease, or use by other arrangement, of the harbour of Batum; and why Batum is being used as a base for British naval operations?

The PRIME MINISTER: As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs informed the right hon Member for Platting on 1st November, no negotiations have been proceeding for the lease or use of the port of Batum, neither is Batum being used as a base for British naval operations.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether an Italian merchant vessel was not recently seized at sea and taken to Batum by British warships?

The PRIME MINISTER: I should like to have notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — MARRIAGE WITH DECEASED HUSBAND'S BROTHER.

Mr. WATERSON: 29.
asked the Prime Minister if he will introduce a Bill legalising marriage with a deceased husband's brother?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the negative.

Mr. HOGGE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, as a result of the casualties in the War, a great many widows of soldiers who were killed are now living with their husband's brothers, which is the same as is permitted under the law with respect to a man and a deceased wife's sister, and will he not consider the question?

Mr. J. JONES: What about "equality of the sexes?

Mr. HOGGE: May I have an answer to my question? Will the Prime Minister look into the matter?

The PRIME MINISTER: I know from long experience of this House how dangerous it is to begin to interfere with the law in this respect, and I certainly cannot offer any hope that the Government will consider anything of that sort at this moment?

Mr. HOGGE: Why does the right hon. Gentleman defend marriage with a de-
ceased wife's sister, when the widow cannot marry the deceased husband's brother?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am neither defending nor criticising. I am indicating that it is quite impossible, in the present state of public business, when there are so many things to be done, to bring in a Bill dealing with this question. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why!"] I remember the struggles over the Deceased Wife's Sister Bill.

Mr. WATERSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many hon Members are keenly interested in this subject?

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF MUNITIONS.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: 30.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Cabinet have lately had before them the question of winding up the Munitions Department?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir. The subject is under consideration.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Is there any indication whether this Department will be fully wound up before Christmas?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am not aware whether it will be wound up before Christmas, but I think it is now merely engaged in disposing of what has been left over. A great deal of money is involved, but we hope to wind it up as soon as possible. The view of the head of the Department is that the sooner it is wound up the better.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the responsible Minister in charge stated in this House that it was hoped the Ministry would be wound up last July?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not know whether that is so or not. I can assure the House that there is only one reason why it should be kept alive. That is, that it is very difficult to dispose of these enormous dumps, and you have got to watch your market very carefully. Lord Inverforth has shown very great skill and saved enormous sums of money to the country. The Ministry will not be kept alive one single moment beyond what the financial interests of the country demand.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: If there be delay, is it not due to the fact that the War Office authorities have not disclosed in time the supplies to the Disposal Board?

Mr. STEVENS: Is it a fact that within the last few weeks the War Office passed over to the Department a great many millions of munitions of which the Department knew nothing before?

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: Has His Majesty's Ordnance Department control of the whole of these stores? Does the Disposal Board of the Ministry of Munitions get the stores from the Ordnance Department for sale, and would it not be possible for the Ordnance Department to dispose of the stores, instead of having this duplication of business which is so expensive?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not wish to say anything about the Ordnance Department, which is a very effective Department for its own purposes, but I should doubt very much whether it has got the necessary equipment for the purpose of disposing of these stores. There is a vast quantity which could not be sold all at once, even from the point of view of putting it on the market. It would be a very unwise thing. There has been a considerable quantity of stores unsold, but I believe that they are pretty well through now.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Could the right hon. Gentleman answer my question as to delay on the part of the War Office in handing over stores?

The PRIME MINISTER: It is not altogether that. If you had all the material available in one dump, it would be quite impossible to put it all on the market at once. You have got to watch the market very carefully, because it would affect the market. It has been done with great skill and care by Lord Inverforth. I have had my eye on this for some time.

Mr. ROSE: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman conceive the possibility of a Disposal Board without the meddlesome interference of a superfluous Ministry? Might not he get rid of the Ministry, and let the Disposal Board go on without any Ministry?

The PRIME MINISTER: Surely that is the wrong way of going about it.

Mr. ROSE: Why?

The PRIME MINISTER: After all, the House of Commons has responsibility in the matter, and the Minister is responsible to Parliament for everything he does. I have heard myself a great deal of criticism of the Ministry of Munitions in this House, and rightly so.

Mr. KILEY: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware of half-a-dozen cases of manufacturing businesses, employing thousands of hands, conducted by the Ministry in competition with traders, which have not yet been handed over to the Disposal Board?

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMISTICE DAY (CEREMONIES).

Commander Viscount CURZON: 31.
asked the Prime Minister what part is to be taken by the officers and men of the Royal Navy and Royal Naval Reserves in the ceremonies of the unveiling of the Cenotaph and the burial of the unknown warrior?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Colonel Sir James Craig): I have been asked to reply to this question. The Royal Navy, the Royal Marines, the Royal Naval Reserve, the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, and Merchant Marine will be represented in the funeral procession, and distinguished flag officers will be among the pall bearers. A portion of the route will be lined by Royal Navy and Royal Marines.

Viscount CURZON: Will the Merchant Service be given representation?

Sir J. CRAIG: I have just said so.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the trawler section of the Royal Naval Reserve be given representation?

Sir J. CRAIG: It has been carefully thought out, and the Admiralty have made representations which, I understand, will satisfy all parties.

Mr. HURD: (by Private Notice)asked the Prime Minister whether there is any objection in the case of any Member who has lost relatives in the War and has secured a ticket for the ceremony on the 11th November to transfer his ticket to his wife or sister if he should prefer to do so?

The PRIME MINISTER: I see no objection to my hon. Friend's suggestion, as it would not involve the provision of any additional accommodation.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

LIST OF SOVEREIGN STATES.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 52
asked the Prime Minister whether he is able to inform the House as to the names of the Sovereign States which have joined the League of Nations, together with the respective amounts so far subscribed by each for the purpose of supporting the necessary machinery?

The PRIME MINISTER: During 1910–1920 His Majesty's Government have paid the sum of £23,000, and during the current financial year (1920–1921) £21,948 12s.
These two sums together constitute the proportional share of His Majesty's Government under the present distribution among members of the League of the total budget of the League up to 31st December, 1920.
I regret that I am not in a position to state the amounts actually subscribed by other members of the League, but I will make inquiries of the Secretariat.
The list of the States which have joined the League of Nations is a long one, and, with the permission of the House, I shall publish it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The following is a list of the States which have joined the League of Nations:


Argentine Republic.
Liberia


Belgium.
Netherlands.


Bolivia.
Norway.


Brazil.
Panama.


British Empire.
Paraguay.


Canada.
Persia.


Australia.
Peru.


South Africa.
Poland.


New Zealand.
Portugal.


India.
Roumania.


Chile.
Salvador.


Colombia.
Serb-Croat-Slovene 


Czecho-Slovakia.
State.


Denmark.
Siam.


France.
Spain.


Greece.
Sweden.


Guatemala.
Switzerland.


Italy.
Uruguay.


Japan.
Venezuela.

TEMPORARY COMMISSIONS (EXPENSES).

Major ENTWISTLE: 32.
asked the Prime Minister what was the substance of the Report on the question of the expanses of the temporary commissions established by the Council of the League of Nations which was presented by M. da Cunha to the Council at the meeting just held at Brussels?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given on the 4th inst. by my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council to the hon. Member for Edinburgh East.

MANDATES.

Mr. CLYNES: 42.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of His Majesty's" Government to instruct the British delegates to the forthcoming meeting of the assembly of the League of Nations to propose that the right to-determine the terms of the mandates reposes in the members of the League; that the terms of the draft mandates be published before being finally approved; and that the approval of the members of the League be obtained by submitting the draft mandates to the, assembly of the League?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first and second parts of the question is in the negative. His Majesty's Government think the matter should be dealt with in accordance with the terms of the Covenant.

Sir J. D. REES: May I ask whether the collective wisdom of the Governments of the Great Powers will have to be submitted to the judgment of these gentlemen at Geneva? Can they alter, amend and reject a mandate?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Great Powers are represented, of course, on the Council of the League, and these mandates have to be submitted to the Council of the League. It will require the unanimous consent of the Council of the League to reject them.

Sir J. D. REES: Can the representatives of the great Governments be outvoted by the representatives of the small Governments, and who can ensure that these gentlemen at Geneva will be endowed with sufficient grace, wisdom and understanding?

The PRIME MINISTER: Nothing can be done except by a unanimous decision of the Council. That means that nothing can be done without the consent of the Powers concerned.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Is it not definitely laid down by the Treaty of Versailles that the degree of authority and control to be exercised by any mandatory in a mandatory area is a matter for the League of Nations, Council or Assembly, to decide?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, subject to the conditions which I have already indicated.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

REPBISALS (POLICE AND MILITARY).

Lord H. CECIL: 33.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government would consent, in respect to reprisals in Ireland, to an inquiry limited to the question whether the policemen and soldiers who have committed acts of violence in reprisal for crime in Ireland have acted in any degree under the authority of superiors and, if so, under whose authority they have acted?

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: 43.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the fact that, despite repeated denials on the part of His Majesty's Government, many newspapers persist in alleging that outrages in Ireland are part of the definite and deliberate policy of that Government; and whether such newspapers will be prosecuted forthwith for spreading a false report likely to cause disaffection?

The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot add anything to previous answers on this subject.

Lord H. CECIL: Does my right hon. Friend realise that accusations have been freely made, and very widely believed, that Members of the Government and the Commander of the Forces in Ireland have given authorisation for acts of violence which no one can defend, and is it not very desirable, to clear that up, that there should be some form of national inquiry?

The PRIME MINISTER: Those are the very criticisms which have been discussed in the House a very short time ago. I never heard a topic so frequently discussed in so short a period.

Captain BENN: Why does the right hon. Gentleman refuse to prosecute newspapers in this country for sedition when he prosecutes them in Ireland?

Mr. CLYNES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the questions and answers to which he has referred are in the fullest conflict on points of fact, and will the right hon. Gentleman make all inquiry, so that the truth may be reached?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not know what my right hon. Friend means, except that the Sinn Fein story does not quite coincide with the reports which we get from the Royal Irish Constabulary.

Mr. DEVLIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a number of leading reviews and newspapers in England have deliberately declared that the Government is responsible for the reprisals, and in view of the universal indignation expressed by every paper of every party yesterday, will he appoint some impartial committee of inquiry, even an English committee, to inquire into the matter?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not accept my hon. Friend's statement. Certain papers criticise the Government, as newspapers always criticise a Government, but there is a vast difference between that and saying there is universal indignation. My own impression is that the country is perfectly satisfied that we are breaking up this conspiracy.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman not be influenced by the fact that, notwithstanding frequent Debates in this House, within the last three days there have been fresh outbreaks in Ireland of the kind referred to—

Mr. MOLES: As a result of the Debates.

Sir D. MACLEAN: —and that these outbreaks have been coupled with definite statements by persons of high authority in the Press that they are linked up with official sanction? Does the right hon. Gentleman not consider the repetition of these charges is sufficient ground for altering his present decision that there should be no inquiry?

The PRIME MINISTER: I understand that the statement referred to by my right hon. Friend was denied by the office in command of that particular battalion. We accept his statement, and my right
hon. Friend does not. I do not see how that is going to be cleared up by any further inquiry or discussion. Under present conditions, I am firmly convinced, from inquiries made, that the men who are suffering in Ireland are the men engaged in a murderous conspiracy.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: And women too.

The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman knows perfectly well that that was a most unfortunate accident, and no one, no decent person, would suggest that it was deliberate. That is one of the unfortunate incidents that always happen in war. [HON. MEMBERS: "In war!"] It is war on their side. It is a rebellion. It happens in every conflict of that kind that innocent people, certainly without any intention on the part of anyone, are hit. That is a totally different matter.

Mr. DEVLIN: The right hon. Gentleman says that these reprisals are only on people engaged in this conspiracy. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware—he has referred to Debates that have taken place in this House—that the military broke into my office in Dublin, smashed the premises, and destroyed over 1,000 ex-soldiers' letters with which I was dealing in connection with their grievances; and does be assert that I am engaged in this criminal conspiracy?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am perfectly certain that my hon. Friend is not only not engaged in it, but that there is no one who regrets it more than he does. I am perfectly convinced of that. I should be the last to make that statement. If the hon. Gentleman has facts of that kind, I shall certainly inquire into them.

Mr. DEVLIN: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. If I bring before him cases of deliberate and even infamous attacks on innocent people, many of whom have no more to do with Sinn Fein than he has, will he inquire into all these cases, or will he appoint a Committee to inquire if he has not the time himself?

The PRIME MINISTER: As far as the Committee is concerned, the Government have expressed their opinion that, whilst this operation is going on we cannot
hamper the authorities there in putting down conspiracy, which, I am perfectly convinced, the people of Ireland are just as anxious to suppress as we, are, except for the intimidation which is reigning there. With regard to inquiry, if my hon. Friend gives me any particulars, he knows perfectly well that I will inquire, into them.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: There are many questions on the Paper still to be asked.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: (by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he would give details of the reprisals carried on in different parts of Ireland during the last three or four days; whether his attention has been called to the following description of Granard by Mr. Hugh Martin, the correspondent of the "Daily News":
I found the town desolate, half deserted, and largely in ruins. Some of the ruins were still smoking. Eight of the largest places of business, together with the Town Hall, had vanished, leaving no trace but piles of rubbish. Six other buildings were badly damaged… Granard had been coolly, scientifically, methodically gutted by men who from first to last remained under some sort of discipline—
whether it is true that, for three or four days all business houses and factories, including bakeries, in Tralee, have been closed by the authority of the police; whether many of the poor were thereby placed in serious distress, and whether the trade of the town for the time being was destroyed; how far this ban by the police on the town has been raised; and by whose authority did the police thus hold up the trade and the food of a whole community; how many people have been killed or wounded during the week-end; how many people arrested; and whether there has been another woman victim?
I hope the right hon. Gentleman received notice of these questions by the first post this morning.

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Sir H. Greenwood): I got this series of questions at a quarter to one today, and I have spent the interval doing my best to get adequate answers.

Mr. O'CONNOR: Did not the right hon. Gentleman receive the letter, which I certainly wrote last night, by the first post today, on his arrival at the office?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I got a letter in general terms stating that my hon. Friend was going to ask a private notice question dealing with Tralee and Granard. There are several other questions. At any rate, I am going to do my best to answer them. I regret to say I cannot answer the first question as it is too indefinite. I have read Mr. Hugh Martin's description of the damage done in Granard early on Thursday last following the assassination of Captain Kelliher, a district inspector in Granard, and Sergeant Cooney of the Royal Irish Constabulary, at Ballinalee, which is near Granard. The business premises in Tralee were closed for some days following a number of assassinations of police on Sunday last, but not by order of the police. I understand shops are now open and business is resuming its normal course.
So far as official information to hand goes, there were no policemen murdered during the week-end, but five were wounded in Derry on Saturday night. One soldier was murdered at Youghal on Friday night last. I have no information of any soldier being wounded. One civilian was killed in Cork and two were wounded in other parts of Ireland. I cannot say the number of arrests during the weekend, but there have been, I believe, a considerable number. No official information as to the killing of any woman is to hand. I profoundly regret the newspaper account turns out to be true. There was a fight between a mixed force of police and military and Sinn Feiners at Ardfert and Causeway, near Tralee, on Friday night last, and two Sinn Feiners were arrested. One had a loaded German pistol in his possession. The police report that they estimate six of the attacking Sinn Feiners were killed.

Mr. O'CONNOR: The right hon. Gentleman may not have heard, or have misunderstood the question, but I understand he makes no comment, either in denial or affirmation, on the account of the state of Granard in the report of Mr. Hugh Martin, and in regard to the second question he denies that shops and places of business in Tralee were closed by order of the police. He does not deny they were closed, and I would like to know on whose orders?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: With reference to Granard, I am awaiting a report. In
reference to Tralee, I myself have wired, "As the shops were closed, admittedly, on whose authority were they closed?" I am awaiting a reply to that wire.

Mr. DEVLIN: Seeing that this havoc and this destruction were carried on last Thursday in Granard, why has the right hon. Gentleman not had a report before now?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: This destruction occurred early on Thursday morning last in Granard, following the assassination of two officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary, and the whole of the constabulary and the military in the vicinity have been scouring the country ever since. I have wired for a full report on this matter, and it is on the way to me now.

Mr. DEVLIN: May I ask why, when a whole town is destroyed and great destruction of property takes place, four days elapse before the right hon, Gentleman is acquainted with the facts?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: On the first point, there is no case of a whole town being destroyed. Secondly, one gets telegraphic reports, which are naturally very short and incomplete, and a full report can only be drawn up by an officer who has the time and the information at his disposal, and it cannot be done at the same time that he is chasing assassins.

Lord HUGH CECIL: Will the right hon. Gentleman lay on the Table the reports in the possession of the Irish Office in relation to these matters, and also the finding of the Military Courts of Inquiry either as to the deaths of persons or acts of violence?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I must have notice of a series of questions like that. It is against the rule governing reports of disciplinary forces to Ministerial heads, that they should be laid on the Table of the House.

Mr. O'CONNOR: I give notice that I will repeat these questions tomorrow, when I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be in a position to give full information.

Mr. DEVLIN: (by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the statement of the Central News correspondent in Tralee, that his house was visited during his absence on Saturday
by the police, who left a warning that he would be put up against the wall and shot if he transmitted Press messages without first submitting them to the police; whether the same action as is now being taken against the "Freeman's Journal" will be instituted against the representatives of English, French, American and other newspapers that have sent accounts to the world of the events in Ireland; whether in the case of the prosecution of the "Freeman's Journal" the trial will take place in the presence of representatives of the Press?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I also got this question at a quarter to one. I have asked for a Report as to the allegation made by the Central News correspondent at Tralee. I repeat what I have already said in this House, that, so far as the Irish Government is concerned, it does not, and has never, interfered with the journalists of any country following out their duties, but will do all it can to assist them. As to the other question, I have no control over the English. French, American and other newspapers, except the Irish. The answer to the last part is in the affirmative.

Mr. DEVLIN: When a number of most reputable English journalists make statements that the police have intimidated and threatened responsible pressmen of this country, and when that statement is only denied by those largely responsible for these threats, will not some independent inquiry be made, and the public allowed an opportunity itself of forming a judgment as to who is really telling the truth in the matter?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I do not see the case for an inquiry. I am happy to say that, in the meantime, all the pressmen are carrying on with great diligence.

Mr. O'CONNOR: Is the right hon. Gentleman serious in the reply he gave to the question of my hon. Friend, namely, that a newspaper is to have its case heard in secrecy by the military authority, without any opportunity being given to it and the world of knowing the charges, the evidence, and the sentence; and, if that be so, does he still persist in the statement that Ireland is the freest country for journalists in the world?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Yes, I still persist in that statement, and the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for the
Falls Division (Mr. Devlin) is in the affirmative, namely, that the prosecution of the "Freemen's Journal" will take place, in public, in the presence of the representatives of the Press of the world.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask the Prime Minister whether his account of the state of affairs in Ireland is exactly similar to that made in the German Reichstag during the War?

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: Were you there?

Oral Answers to Questions — BALTIC SHIPPING.

Mr. MILLS: 34.
asked the Prime Minister upon what grounds of international law a Finnish merchant ship was stopped by naval forces in the Baltic on Sunday last, 31st October, when on a voyage from. Stockholm to Danzig?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I presume this question refers to the s.s. "Ariadne," which was diverted to Danzig on her journey from Copenhagen to Helsingfors, in order that certain Russians might be transferred to one of His Majesty's ships. The circumstances which led to this action were stated in a reply given on 4th November to the hon. Member for Islington East. His Majesty's Government are satisfied that their action was fully justified in order to ensure the release of the British subjects at Baku. No protest has been received from the Finnish Government. I have every confidence that they will realise that the action of His Majesty's Government was well justified.

Mr. MILLS: The question I asked related to international law. Can this be justified by international law?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I think so. Perhaps the hon. Member will refer to the previous question which I mentioned in my answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINIMUM WAGE BILL.

Mr. C. WHITE: 35.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will shortly introduce the Minimum Wage Bill promised in the King's Speech of this year; and, failing its introduction this year, will he undertake to make it a Government Bill in the early days of next Session?

Mr. KILEY: 56.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can now name the date for the Minimum Wages Commission Bill?

The PRIME MINISTER: If it is found impossible to proceed with the Bill this Session, it is the intention of the Government to deal with it next Session.

Oral Answers to Questions — PERSIA.

Major GLYN: 36.
asked the Prime Minister whether the present situation in Persia will be considerably improved as soon as adequate and satisfactory arrangements can be made to assist import and export trade between the British Empire and other countries with Persia by way of Basra and south-east Mesopotamia; and whether it is of vital importance, as the first preliminary, that a port trust, representing the chief interests concerned, should be formed at Basra in order that the necessary improvements can be carried out without delay?

The PRIME MINISTER: His Majesty's Government have for some time past given and continue to give their earnest attention to the improvement of communications and trade generally in those parts referred to by the hon. and gallant Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES.

Mr. HIGHAM: 39.
asked the Prime Minister whether in view of the fact that the Employment Exchanges have only been able to secure employment for less than 25 per cent, of the men registered with them in June, July, and August of this year, the Government will consider the advisability of closing these Exchanges in order to save the expenditure on this means of finding work for the unemployed?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Sir-Montague Barlow): I have been asked to reply. As my hon. Friend was informed in reply to his question on 3rd November last, we are awaiting the Report of the Committee of Inquiry on Employment Exchanges, presided over by the right hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Barnes). The Committee's Report is likely to be
submitted at an early date, and meanwhile my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour is not prepared to take any action such as is suggested in the question. I should add that the proportion of applicants registered to those placed during a given period is only one of the factors to be taken into account in estimating the value of the Employment Exchange system. Of the vacancies notified to Exchanges in each of the three months in question, 68 per cent, were filled during June, 70 per cent. during July, and 74 per cent, during August.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE.

Sir ALFRED BIRD: 40.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the urgent distress existing among uninsured workers who do not come within the scope of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920; and will the Government reduce the waiting period for relief of these uninsured persons from six to three days, on the same basis provided for in the first paragraph of Schedule II of the aforesaid Act?
The word "uninsured" ["uninsured workers"] should be "insured," and the words "do not" should be omitted.

Sir M. BARLOW: I had some difficulty in understanding the question as it appeared on the Paper. I will give the hon. Member the answer provided to the question as printed. If the reply is not what he wants, perhaps he will let me know. Uninsured workers will not receive any State payment when unemployed, unless they belong to the classes entitled to out-of-work donation, namely, ex-service men or women, or merchant seamen. These classes will be entitled to out-of-work donation under the further extension recently announced, which will operate to 31st March next. Under this extension, as under all previous extensions, the waiting period is six days, and I cannot hold out any hope that it will be possible to modify it.

Captain COOTE: Are the Government giving any consideration to the proposed inclusion of agricultural labourers in this Bill?

Sir M. BARLOW: The matter is still under consideration.

Mr. W. THORNE: Will the ex-soldiers receive 20s. a week onwards up to the end of March?

Sir M. BARLOW: They have a limited number of extensions available over the whole period. I think the number is sufficient to cover the period up to 25th March.

Oral Answers to Questions — POWER ALCOHOL.

Mr. W. THORNE: 44.
asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that a number of local authorities have passed a resolution viewing with the utmost concern the steadily rising price of motor-fuel, pointing out the danger to the community arising therefrom, and request that immediate steps be taken to secure the production and distribution of power alcohol within the Empire under the immediate supervision and control of the Government?

Sir R. HORNE: My attention has been drawn to the resolution. The Fuel Research Board have for a considerable time past been making investigations and experiments in the production of alternative supplies of motor fuel, including power alcohol. Their interim report issued in July last gives the results of these inquiries up to that time. I am sending the hon. Member a copy. The research work is being continued.

Mr. JESSON: May I ask who is responsible for the issuing of the Report, and is the right hon. Gentleman aware that power alcohol is being produced in Africa at considerably below the price mentioned?

Sir R. HORNE: I am not aware that it is being produced in Africa below this price. The Report shows the latest results of the investigations of the Committee appointed here.

Mr. JESSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept such a Report as a proper one?

Sir R. HORNE: I undoubtedly do.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Has the Committee taken into consideration that there are enormous supplies of material arising from sugar plantations for making power alcohol, and which is at present being wasted?

Sir R. HORNE: That has been considered by the Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions — BATTLE OF JUTLAND.

Viscount CURZON: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether the full despatches, the battle orders, and any special instructions given to the Commander-in-Chief of the Grand Fleet, the officer commanding the battle cruiser and Harwich forces prior to the battle of Jutland, and the operation orders for the 31st of May, 1916, will be included in the publication of the official Report of the action?

Sir W. DAVISON: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies to this question, may I ask if he will assure the House that no papers will be issued to gratify idle curiosity, which will be prejudicial to the naval safety of this country?

Rear-Admiral ADAIR: May I ask whether the Admiralty have considered the undesirability of publishing battle orders, the outcome of years and years of experience of the British Navy, for the education of every other navy in the world.

The PRIME MINISTER: I think the reply answers the further questions put by the hon. Gentlemen (Sir W. Davison and Rear-Admiral Adair).
The Paper promised will include full despatches and all special instructions and orders emanating either from the Admiralty or the Commander-in-Chief, prior to the battle. As regards the term "Battle Orders" used in the question, these include detailed instructions and orders which are still in force in His Majesty's Navy, and which are of a very confidential nature, embodying the experience gained by our Fleet as the result of tactical exercises and studies through a long period of years. In the interest of naval efficiency these must be kept secret, but the documents that are being printed will provide all the material required for an understanding of the strategy prior to and the actual tactics of the battle.

Mr. J. JONES: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the names of naval officers who are getting pensions for running their ships on rocks are published?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman satisfy himself that a Naval Staff appreciation of this battle is being prepared for the use of staff officers studying naval problems of the future, and which is to be kept confidential, and will place on record the whole of the material available?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have no doubt the Admiralty would certainly do that.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN.

LAND SETTLEMENT.

Captain TERRELL: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the slow progress in the settlement on the land of ex-service men; and whether, in view of the fact that this was one of the Coalition election promises in 1918, he can take steps to stimulate the activities of local authorities?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am unable to accept the suggestion that slow progress has been made with the Government's scheme of land settlement. Since the Armistice 10,424 men have been settled in England and Wales, and land has been acquired which will provide for a further 8,000 men, a large proportion of whom would have been settled by now but for the grave difficulties and delays in the erection of cottages and farm buildings. I think these figures show that the Government is keenly alive to the importance of fulfilling the pledge to ex-service men given at the election of 1918. Every means is being employed to stimulate the activities of local authorities, most of whom are attacking their difficult task with great energy, and Members of Parliament could give material assistance by stimulating the efforts of local authorities in their constituencies.

Captain TERRELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in spite of the large number who have been settled on the land, there are tens of thousands of ex-service men who have applied for land and whose applications have not yet been considered?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is great dissatisfaction in Scotland at the action of the Board, which has been extraordinarily slow, and that there are in the Highlands thousands of men who have been bred on
the land and who want to get small holdings and cannot get them?

Major O'NEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is very great dissatisfaction in Ireland with regard to the administration of the Special Act passed for Ireland to give land to ex-soldiers?

Mr. MILLS: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to ascertain how many available huts there are ready for immediate use, and which could be utilised by this Department; and how far the Ministry of Munitions and the Disposal Board have prevented the settlement of men on the land in the county of Essex?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is a question which was considered long ago. There is not very much in it, as I thought myself at one time there might have been. I wish it could have been possible to have used more from those sources but I was disappointed as to the possibilities when I made inquiries. With regard to Scotland, I realise that there is some disappointment in the Highlands of Scotland, and that is being specially looked into at the present time and I trust that hopeful steps will result. It is not correct to say, as my hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Terrell) has said, that there are the numbers indicated by him of men whose cases have not been looked into. With regard to Ireland, I am surprised to hear there is any dissatisfaction. I have no special information with regard to it, but I will look into the matter.

Captain TERRELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are hundreds of cases in Oxfordshire alone which have not yet been dealt with? It is true what I am saying.

The PRIME MINISTER: There is a great difference between hundreds of cases in Oxfordshire and tens of thousands of cases.

Captain TERRELL: I said tens of thousands throughout the country.

The PRIME MINISTER: My information is that the statement made by the hon. and gallant Member is not strictly in accordance with the information at the disposal of the Department. We are
exceedingly anxious to settle soldiers on the land. I think it is most desirable. As a matter of fact there have been more people settled on the land by Government action in the last two years than in the previous 30 years, but it is not a very easy matter. There is the question of finance to be looked into, there is the difficulty with regard to land, and, in addition, there is the difficulty of finding the men. It is no use putting men on the land who have had no previous training and who know nothing at all about it. That is only really encouraging failure. The first thing to do is to see that they are trained.

BUILDING TRADE (DILUTION).

Captain TERRELL: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the importance to the nation, he can state whether any agreement has been reached between the Government and the trades unions affected for the dilution of expert building labour by the employment of ex-service men; and when, in that case, he anticipates that effect will be given to the arrangement so that local authorities, now faced with the growing unemployment and at the same time the slow progress of building, may know the earliest moment when they can expect relief?

Dr. ADDISON: Negotiations are now proceeding, and I do not think that any statement can usefully be made at the present moment.

Captain TERRELL: When may we have a statement from the Government on this very important question?

Dr. ADDISON: I hope it will not be very long, probably in a week.

Captain TERRELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this question has been under consideration for very nearly a year?

Dr. ADDISON: I know it has been under consideration for some time.

EGYPT.

Mr. SWAN: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether the negotiations between Lord Milner and the Egyptian delegation are in danger of breaking down over the refusal to include in the agreement the explicit terms of the British protectorate?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — PASSPORTS AND VISAS.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 51.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Departments concerned have under examination the points raised at the recent International Conference in Paris with regard to the simplification and reduction in the prices of passports and visas; and whether, in view of the importance to the travelling public, he can see his way to press for an early decision in this matter?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: As I stated in reply to the hon. Member on October 28th, the Departments concerned have under examination the points raised at the recent conference in Paris with regard to the simplification of the existing passport and visa systems. So far as this question will be of any benefit to British subjects, the matter depends entirely upon the action which foreign Governments may take in the matter.

Sir A. BRITTAIN: May I ask whether it is possible for this question to be taken up at Geneva? Unless this country gives a lead in the matter, is it not highly improbable that no other country will take it up?

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this House has been pegging away at this question for about a year?

Oral Answers to Questions — CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).

Mr. HURD: 54.
asked the Prime Minister whether the licensing legislation of this Session will remove unfair restrictions imposed by the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) because of the proximity of military camps or for other war purposes on licensed houses in areas such as that of the town of Frome, which lie within larger uncontrolled areas; and if not, what other steps the Government propose to remove this vexatious inequality?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): I have been asked to reply to this question. I would ask the hon. Member to wait for the Bill, which it is hoped to introduce this week.

Mr. HURD: Will the Bill touch this subject at all?

Mr. FISHER: Perhaps the hon. Member will wait and see the Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the finding of the Committee under the chairmanship of the right hon. Lord Parmoor to inquire into the system of industrial insurance of the working people by insurance companies; and whether, in view of the unexpectedly rapid progress of the Bill for the better government of Ireland now before this House, he will consider the possibility of introducing legislation this Session to deal with this urgent matter affecting many thousands of poor families?

The CHANCELLOR of the EX-CHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I am not yet in a position to introduce legislation, even if I thought, which I do not, that it would be possible to pass it this Session.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: As this is a very important subject, may I ask if it is engaging the attention of the right hon. Gentleman's Department or of the Government?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes. The drafting of a Bill on this subject is in hand.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGLO-PERSIAN OIL COMPANY.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: 53.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to a statement to the effect that the Anglo-Persian Oil Company is subscribing for shares in several Continental speculative trading companies which are to conduct their operations on the Continent, thereby putting the large sum of money invested by the British taxpayer to the risk of loss; whether the said money was voted by Parliament to obtain large supplies for the United Kingdom and Dominions; will he take steps to stop the officials of the company from utilising the money voted by Parliament for purposes other than those for which it was voted; and how far do the Government propose to extend their trading operations through this company?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The special interests of His Majesty's Government in the Anglo-Persian Oil Company are protected by the ex-officio directors on the board. I have confidence in the judgment of the board of directors, including the ex-officio directors, as to the commercial transactions of the company and in accordance with the assurance given to the company at its formation, I do not propose to intervene in the ordinary commercial management of the company. I am satisfied that the money voted by Parliament has been all applied to the purposes for which it was voted.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Does the right hon. Gentleman not see that if the Anglo-Persian Oil Company start selling oil on the Continent, it is doing the very thing the prevention of which was given as the reason for the Government subscribing money to its shares, that it was thought the other oil companies would trade on the Continent, and this company was to trade at home and with the Colonies? It is a breach of faith with Parliament.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. Friend is misinformed. The object of the Government participation is to secure adequate supplies to this country, and particularly for the Navy. That is a matter of general policy which the Government will seek to protect, but I do not propose to intervene, and indeed, the Government of the day gave the assurance when the company was formed that we should not intervene, in the ordinary commercial management of the company.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is it not notorious that this country has not got adequate supplies?

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

BLACK SEA (NAVIGATION).

Mr. SWAN: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Italian Government has declared its opposition to the blockade in the Black Sea established by the Inter-Allied Admirals' Commission at Constantinople against Soviet Russia?

The PRIME MINISTER: A communication on the subject of navigation in the Black Sea has been received from the Italian Ambassador (and His Majesty's Government are considering how far the views of the Italian Government can be
met consistently with the policy indicated in the reply given by the Lord Privy Seal to the hon. and gallant Member for Sea-ham (Major Hayward) on 3rd November.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it a fact that there is a blockade of any sort in the Black Sea, and, if so, how does he reconcile that with the declarations made by his Government on previous occasions in this House?

The PRIME MINISTER: I referred to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who has made it clear that the blockade has only reference to the carrying of arms to Turkey, to the Nationalists there. That must be stopped.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: But is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in effect no peaceful merchant ship can go to any port under Soviet control owing to this blockade?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is certainly not intended, and I think it is not so.

BRITISH PRISONERS AND TRADE RELATIONS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether the British prisoners in Russia and Azerbaijan have yet been released, and, if so, whether trade with Russia will now be permitted?

The PRIME MINISTER: As the House has already been informed, the members of the Siberian Military Mission and certain of the British civilian prisoners have reached Finland. There remain a large number of British subjects in Russia whose repatriation has not yet been effected. There is, however, no reason to suppose that the Soviet Government do not intend to carry out their assurances on this subject. No information has yet been received as to the Baku prisoners having reached Tiflis. We are assured that as soon as British prisoners are released and all hostile propaganda by the Soviet Government against the British Empire has ceased, the trade agreement will be completed.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can take steps to prevent inflammatory speeches, by Members of his Cabinet, inciting to war against Russia?

HON. MEMBERS: Malone!

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: Is it a fact that Bolshevik forces have recently been endeavouring to go further into Persia, and will the right hon. Gentleman consider that also before dealing with the hon. and gallant Gentleman's question?

Mr. THOMAS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a lot of piffle is talked about Bolshevism in this country, and that the advertisement given to it by Members of his own Cabinet is far more likely to create trouble than to alleviate the situation?

Mr. W. THORNE: Answer, Churchill!

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): I will answer quick enough, if you will give me a chance.

Oral Answers to Questions — CROWN LANDS.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: 58.
asked the Prime Minister who is Parliamentarily responsible for the Office of Woods and Forests; whether he is aware that the agricultural portions of Crown lands are not being satisfactorily or economically dealt with, while the tenants on the London portions are being squeezed to the utmost extent; and whether he will direct an inquiry to be made into the whole administration of this office?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Department responsible is the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. With regard to the remainder of the question, I am now considering the advisability of directing an inquiry into the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALLOTMENTS (ROYAL PARKS).

Sir W. JOYNSON HICKS: (by Private Notice) asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he is turning out from Richmond Park, an area of some 3,000 acres, 69 allotment holders, of whom 59 are ex-soldiers; whether he is aware of the great feeling in the neighbourhood; and whether he has refused to receive a deputation from the Corporation of Richmond.

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir Alfred Mond): The facts as stated by the hon. Member are substantially correct. Allotments in the Royal Parks were granted exceptionally during the War on grounds of national food
necessity, and it was always understood that they were of a purely temporary character.
In December last I received a deputation from the Parliamentary Committee on Allotments and the whole question of allotments in the Royal Parks was fully considered. It was then agreed that all allotments should be surrendered by Lady Day, 1921, and that no further question of extension would be raised. I regret therefore that I do not see my way in fairness to the other allotment holders in the Royal Parks to make any exception in this particular case.
I might add that two years have elapsed since the Armistice, and I do not feel justified in any longer alienating for the benefit of local allotment holders portions of the parks which are maintained out of public funds and exist for the recreation of the entire community. As a matter of fact, the Richmond Borough Council have applied for ground in Richmond Park for organised games and have been offered the use of the present allotment site when restored as being the most suitable for this purpose.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is not the food shortage just as bad as it was during the War?

Mr. W. THORNE: You did not say that in 1918 and 1919, did you?

BILL PRESENTED.

UNEMPLOYMENT (RELIEF WORKS) BILL,

to make better provision for the employment of unemployed persons by facilitating the acquisition of and entry on land required for works of public utility; and for purposes connected therewith," presented by Sir ERIC GEDDES; supported by Dr. Macnamara, Mr. Munro, and Mr. Neal; to be read a Second time Tomorrow; and to be printed.

Orders of the Day — GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL

Order for Consideration, as amended, read.

4.0 P.M.

Sir LAMING WORTHINGTON-EVANS (Minister without Portfolio): I beg to move, "That the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House in respect of the Amendments and the new Clause standing in the names of Sir Laming Worthington-Evans and Mr. Fisher."
There was an undertaking given in the course of the Committee stage that the Bill would be recommitted for the purposes of certain Clauses. Consequently, this Motion has been put down to recommit the Bill with regard to certain Amendments and new Clauses standing in the names of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education and myself.

Sir F. BANBURY: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: Does the right hon. Gentleman wish to oppose the Motion?

Sir F. BANBURY: I wish to move an Amendment.

Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman cannot move an Amendment; he may oppose in a brief speech, but he cannot do more.

Sir F. BANBURY: I oppose this Motion, because I think the Bill should be recommitted to include, not only the Amendments standing in the names of the two right hon. Gentlemen, but also those standing in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for York (Sir J. Butcher). They are important Amendments, dealing with finance, and, as they have not been included, I should like to oppose the re-committal of the Bill.
Question put, "That the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House in respect of the Amendments and the new Clause standing in the names of Sir Laming Worthington-Evans and Mr. Fisher."

The House divided: Ayes, 197; Noes, 27.

Division No. 353.]
AYES.
[4.5 p.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Hambro, Captain Angus Valdemar


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Collins, Sir G. P. (Greenock)
Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Higham, Charles Frederick


Archdale, Edward Mervyn
Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank


Atkey, A. R.
Coote, William (Tyrone, South)
Hills, Major John Waller


Bagley, Captain E. Ashton
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Hinds, John


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Hoare, Lieut. Colonel Sir S. J. G.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page
Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)


Barnett, Major R. W.
Curzon, Commander Viscount
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)


Barrand, A. R,
Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)
Hopkins, John W. W.


Barrie, Charles Coupar
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Beauchamp, Sir Edward
Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)
Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Dockrell, Sir Maurice
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish
Donald, Thompson
Hurd, Percy A.


Betterton, Henry B.
Doyle, N. Grattan
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Duncannon, Viscount
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)
Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Jellett, William Morgan


Borwick, Major G. O.
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Jesson, C.


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith
Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)
Jodrell, Neville Paul


Bowles, Colonel H. F.
Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
Johnstone, Joseph


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)


Brassey, Major H. L. C.
Fell, Sir Arthur
Joynson-Hicks, Sir William


Breese, Major Charles E.
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George


Bridgeman, William Clive
Ford, Patrick Johnston
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Briggs, Harold
Forestier-Walker, L.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Brittain, Sir Harry
Forrest, Walter
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)


Brown, T. W. (Down, North)
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)


Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C.
Lindsay, William Arthur


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Gardiner, James
Lloyd-Greame, Major Sir P.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Lonsdale, James Rolston


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Goff, Sir R. Park
Lorden, John William


Burn, T. H. (Belfast, St. Anne's)
Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A.
Lowe, Sir Francis William


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Grant, James A.
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander


Carr, W. Theodore
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Lynn, R. J.


Casey, T. W.
Greenwood, Colonel Sir Hamar
M'Donald, Dr. Bouverie F. P.


Cautley, Henry S.
Greig, Colonel James William
Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A.(Birm.,W.)
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
M'Guffin, Samuel


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Gwynne, Rupert S.
M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.


M'Micking, Major Gilbert
Pratt, John William
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Purchase, H. G.
Tickler, Thomas George


Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Raper, A. Baldwin
Tryon, Major George Clement


Macquisten, F. A.
Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)
Waddington, R.


Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Reid, D. D.
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor


Marriott, John Arthur Ransome
Remer, J. R.
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Mildmay, Colonel Rt. Hon. F. B.
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Warren, Lieut.-Col. Sir Alfred H.


Moles, Thomas
Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Wason, John Cathcart


Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Norwood)
Whitla, Sir William


Morris, Richard
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Morrison, Hugh
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald


Mosley, Oswald
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)
Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)


Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)


Murray, Lieut.-Colonel A. (Aberdeen)
Simm, M. T.
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Neal, Arthur
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander
Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)


Nicholl, Commander Sir Edward
Stevens Marshall
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H.
Sturrock, J. Leng
Yate, Colonel Charles Edward


Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.
Sugden, W. H.
Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)


Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Sutherland, Sir William
Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)


Pearce, Sir William
Taylor, J.
Younger, Sir George


Pennefather, De Fonblanque
Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)



Philipps, Gen. Sir I. (Southampton)
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)
Lord E. Talbot and Captain Guest.


Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Thomas-Stanford, Charles



NOES.


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Royce, William Stapleton


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hayward, Major Evan
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hogge, James Myles
Swan, J. E.


Briant, Frank
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Cape, Thomas
Kenyon, Barnet
Waterson, A. E.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Morgan, Major D. Watts
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Entwistle, Major C.F.
Myers, Thomas



Galbraith, Samuel
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Glanville, Harold James
Robertson, John
Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy and




Mr. Mills

Bill accordingly considered in Committee.

[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 2.—(Constitution of Council of Ireland.)

(2) The Council of Ireland shall in the first instance consist of a person appointed by His Majesty, who shall be President, twenty persons, of whom not less than ten shall be Members of the House of Commons of Southern Ireland chosen by that House in such manner as that House may determine, and twenty persons, of whom not less than ten shall be Members of the House of Commons of Northern Ireland chosen by that House in such manner as that House may determine, and the appointment of Members of the Council of Ireland shall be the first business of the House of Commons of Southern Ireland and of Northern Ireland.

A Member of the Council appointed by the House of Commons of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland shall, on ceasing to be a Member of that House, cease to be a Member of the Council:

Provided that on the dissolution of the Parliament of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland the persons who are Members of the Council appointed by the House of Commons of that Parliament shall continue to hold office as Members of the Council until the date of the first meeting of the new Parliament.

The Council may act notwithstanding a vacancy in their number, and the quorum
of the Council shall be fifteen; subject as aforesaid the Council may regulate their own procedure including the delegation of powers to committees.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "Parliament" ["first meeting of the new Parliament"], to insert the words "The first meeting of the Council shall be held at such time and place as may be appointed by the Lord Lieutenant."
This is an Amendment to remedy an omission. In the Bill as printed there is no statement as to when the first meeting of the Irish Council shall be called, or by whom it shall be called. The Amendment provides that the Lord Lieutenant shall fix the time and place for the first meeting of the Irish Council. It is really a formal Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 10—(Powers of Irish Council.)

(3) The Council may consider any questions which may appear in any way to bear on the welfare of both Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland, and may, by resolu-
tion, make suggestions in relation thereto as they may think proper, but suggestions so made shall have no legislative effect, and in particular it shall be the duty of the Council of Ireland forthwith after the constitution thereof to consider what Irish services ought in the common interest to be administered by a body having jurisdiction over the whole of Ireland, and what reserved services which are transferable on the passing of identical Acts ought to be so transferred, and to make recommendations to the Parliaments of Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland as to the advisability of passing identical Acts delegating to the Council of Ireland the administration of any such Irish services, with a view to avoiding the necessity of administering them separately in Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland, and providing for the transfer of any such reserved services at the earliest possible date.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), to leave out, the word "forthwith" ["it shall be the duty of the Council of Ireland forthwith"] and to insert instead thereof the words "as soon as may be."
The Bill provides that the Irish Council shall take into consideration forthwith certain plans for the unification of Irish Servcies, and I move to leave out the word "forthwith" and to put in the words "as soon as may be," because there is another duty devolving upon the Irish Council which ought to have priority.

Sir F. BANBURY: I should like to ask a questoin or two. I do not see very much difference between "forthwith" and "as soon as may be," but I should like to know what is this other duty which is more important than the duty mentioned in this Clause. My right hon. Friend said that there was another duty, but he did not say what it was.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Second Chambers.

Sir F. BANBURY: That is what I thought, and that happens to be rather a large question. It may be that when we come to the proposal that the Council of Ireland shall set up Second Chambers—instead of this House setting up Second Chambers—then these words will be useless. I would suggest that this Amendment should be withdrawn, leaving the word "forthwith" to stand, and if subsequently, on our dealing with the later Clause, it is decided to set up Second Chambers, then on the Report stage—and
I understand the Government have not had a Report stage yet—the word "forthwith" can be left out, and "as soon as may be" inserted. That would be a far better way of doing what is desired.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: My right hon. Friend has realised that this Amendment is really nothing but a drafting Amendment. I purposely did not open the question of the Second Chambers because there is a new Clause which we shall have to discuss at length. I only wish that the word "forthwith" should be left out of the Sub-section and "as soon as may be" inserted. If the House passes the new Clause relating to Second Chambers—it will be for the consideration of the House or Committee as to whether they do or do not pass it— if they do, these words will have to go. I suggest my right hon. Friend might as well let this Amendment go forward and discuss the main thing in its proper place.

Sir F. BANBURY: Very well.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 22.—(Irish residuary share of reserved taxes.)

(1) There shall in respect of each year be charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom to the Exchequers of Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland a sum equal to the Irish share of reserved taxes in that year after deducting—

(a)the amount of the Irish contribution towards Imperial liabilities and expenditure; and
(b) whilst any services remain reserved services, the net cost to the Exchequer of the United Kingdom during the year of the services so remaining reserved services.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1, b,) to insert the words
excluding therefrom such sums as the Joint Exchequer Board may certify to have been expended in the provision of buildings (including the sites thereof) and equipment for the purposes of the Supreme Court of Northern Ireland.
In the course of the Committee stage I was asked by my right hon. Friend whether the provision, under Clause 32 of the Bill, relating to new buildings for the North and South, did or did not include Law Courts. I replied I thought the provision did include Law Courts, but if they
did not then some alteration would have to be made in the Bill, so that Law Courts might be provided. I find on looking into the matter that there is at least a doubt as to whether the words in Clause 32 do include Law Courts, and, on the whole, I was advised they do not, because the administration of the law, at any rate in this sense, is a reserved service; and for various reasons it would be at least doubtful whether the provisions of the Clause cover the position. This will apply only to Northern Ireland, because Southern Ireland is well provided with Law Courts in Dublin. There is no distinction between the North and South in this matter. What we are doing now is to provide Law Courts for the North at the Imperial expense.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 51.—(Provisions as to existing Judges and other persons having salaries charged on the Consolidated Fund.)

(3)Sub-section (1) of this Section shall apply to existing Irish officers in the civil service of the Crown, who, although receiving salaries not charged on the Consolidated Fund, are removable only for misconduct or incapacity, including (after the date of Irish Union) officers removable under Section seventy-three; of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Ireland), 1877: Provided that, in the case of any such officer whose salary is payable otherwise than out of money provided by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, the provisions of that Subsection with respect to the payment of salaries and pensions out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom shall not have effect, and in the case of any such officer whose salary is payable out of money provided by the Parliament of the United Kingdom those provisions shall have effect with the substitution of payment out of money so provided for charge on and payment out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (3), to insert a new Sub-section—
(4)Sub-section (2) of this Section shall apply to any officer to whom Sub-section (3) of this Section applies, with the substitution of a reference to a period of forty years' service for the reference to the period of service entitling to a pension.
This Amendment has been put down in pursuance of an undertaking given in Committee to my hon. and gallant Friend. It provides that Sub-section (3) of Clause
51, which now extends to certain Irish officers who hold their offices on a good behaviour tenure, and in consequence draw certain salaries, gratuities, and pensions, shall extend to certain other officers, whose salaries are not charged on the Consolidated Fund, but who are entitled to retire on a pension before the completion of the pensionable period of service. These salaries are not charged on the Consolidated Fund but on money voted. There is a slight alteration in Sub-section (2) in that the class officers to which this now extends are required to have a period of 40 years' service before being entitled to retire.

Captain CRAIG: I should like to ask the Attorney-General for Ireland what officers not included in the Bill are now by the words of this Amendment included, and particularly whether the Amendment includes clerks of the Crown and Peace and Under-Sheriffs. I need not point out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he gave an undertaking on this Clause that he would look into the case of the clerks of the Crown and Peace, and bring forward an Amendment which would cover their case. Reference was also made to the Under-Sheriffs. I should like to know whether they will be put on the same footing as clerks of the Crown and Peace. These officials by a recent Act of Parliament are being made at least quasi officers of the Civil Service, and I should like the right hon. and learned Gentleman to tell us exactly what is their position.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Denis Henry): As regards the clerks of the Crown and Peace, the hon. and gallant Gentleman may take it that they are very amply covered by the provisions of the Bill. So far as Under-Sheriffs are concerned, you could not possibly put them on the same footing as clerks of the Crown and Peace, and for several reasons, including this: that up till 1st November the Under-Sheriffs were simply appointed during the pleasure of the High Sheriff and for the first time, now they are under a new system. We could not possibly recognise pensionable rights in the same way as in the case of clerks of the Crown and Peace.

Captain CRAIG: Have these sub-Sheriffs fixity of tenure which will prevent some official superior removing them from their position, it may be without
justice? Have they not been given, so to speak, fixity of tenure by the Bill which I mentioned, and which was passed earlier in the Session?

Mr. HENRY: Under the Sheriffs Bill of this Session the Under-Sheriffs are appointed by the Lord Lieutenant, and they are removable by him. That is the precise meaning.

Mr. MOLES: What will be their position in the future? I quite recognise the present position of the existing Under-Sheriffs, but seeing that in the future the Under-Sheriffs will be appointed by the Lord Lieutenant, ought they not to have the same rights as other officials?

Mr. HENRY: Under-Sheriffs will be appointed by the Lord Lieutenant, and be dismissible by him. They have no pensionable rights.

Mr. MOLES: That is not quite an answer to my question. What I want to know is what will be their future position in respect to pensionable rights?

Mr. HENRY: So far as pensionable rights are concerned, they have no pensionable rights.

Mr. RONALD McNEILL: I am rather surprised by the answer just given by the hon. and learned Gentleman. He will perhaps remember that I had a conversation with him on this subject following what had been said earlier, and my recollection is that he told me the position of Under-Sheriffs was to be safeguarded completely by this Bill. So far as I now understand him, their position has been entirely altered. Hitherto, as he knows, Under-Sheriffs have been appointed by the Sheriffs, and although the office was only nominally for a year in many cases, or most, and certainly in some that I have in mind, it was practically a life office, and the men concerned were perfectly certain they would not under ordinary circumstances be turned out. Under this Bill the right hon. and learned Gentleman tells us they are going to be appointed by the Lord Lieutenant, and are dismissible by him. That means that they have got absolutely no security of tenure and may be turned out without any compensation whatever. That seems to me to amount to this, that their present position is, by this Bill, being altered to
their disadvantage very seriously. This is quite different to what some of us understood was the intention of the Government.

Mr. HENRY: My hon. Friend will recollect that under the old regime the Under Sheriff could be removed from his office by the High Sheriff who appointed him, and these men were constantly removed year by year. This officer was appointed by the High Sheriff, and only given a small wage or salary. He now gets a substantial or a moderately substantial salary from the Treasury. Under all the circumstances it is difficult to put him on the same footing as the Clerks of the Crown and Peace.

Mr. R. McNEILL: But the present Lord Lieutenant now has power to remove him.

Mr. HENRY: Oh, yes; under the new-Sheriffs' Bill the Lord Lieutenant alone has power over the Under Sheriff, and not the Sheriff.

Mr. McNEILL: Under this Bill?

Mr. HENRY: No, under the Sheriffs Bill of this year.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 61.—(Special provisions as to Dublin University, Trinity College, Dublin, and the Queen's University of Belfast.)

(1) No law made by the Parliament of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland shall have effect so as to alter the constitution, or divert the property of, or repeal or diminish any existing exemption or immunity enjoyed by the University of Dublin, or Trinity College, Dublin, or the Queen's University of Belfast, unless and until the proposed alteration, diversion, repeal, or diminution is approved:—

(a) in the case of the University of Dublin, or Trinity College, Dublin, by a majority of those present and voting at a meeting of each of the following bodies convened for the purpose, namely, the governing body of the College, and the junior fellows and professors voting together, and the University Council, and the Senate; and
(b) in the case of the Queen's University of Belfast by a majority of those present and voting at a meeting of each of the following bodies convened for the purpose, namely: the Senate, and the Academic Council, and the Convocation of the University:
901
Provided that this Section shall not apply to the taking of property (not being land in the occupation of or used in connection with the College or either of the Universities) for the purpose of roads, railways, lighting, water, or drainage works, or other works of public utility upon payment of compensation.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): I beg to move at the end of sub-section (1) to insert a new sub-section—
(2) There shall be paid annually, out of moneys provided by the Parliament of Southern Ireland, to Trinity College, Dublin, a sum of thirty thousand pounds, to the University College, Dublin, a sum of forty-two thousand pounds, to the University College, Cork, a sum of twenty-six thousand pounds, and to the University College, Galway, a sum of seventeen thousand pounds, for the general purposes of those colleges, respectively, and the sum so payable to any of those colleges, if and so far as not so paid, shall be deducted on the order of the Joint Exchequer Board from the Irish residuary share of reserved taxes and paid to the college.
The Committee will recollect that it is already provided that there shall be paid annually out of moneys provided by the Parliament of the North of Ireland to the Queen's University of Belfast £26,000 for the general purposes of the university, and that sum, if and so far as it is not so paid, is to be deducted on the order of the Joint Exchequer Board from the Irish residuary share of reserved taxes. The purpose of this Amendment is to make similar provision for the institutions of higher learning in Southern Ireland. We are not proposing to burden the British Exchequer. We are proposing to create a lien upon the Revenue of the Parliament of Southern Ireland in favour of the institutions of higher learning, both Catholic and Protestant, in that area. I shall, I think, have very little difficulty in carrying the Committee with me when they know that it would be in the nature of an anomaly, if not in the nature of an injustice, if this proposal were not carried, and if we were not providing for the institutions in Southern Ireland in the same way as for the University institution in Northern Ireland.
If it be right that a Protestant University placed under the control of a Protestant Parliament should be guaranteed a revenue adequate to its present needs, then it must be equally right to
extend that same protection to a Catholic University placed under a Catholic Parliament, and it is even more necessary to extend that protection to a Protestant University placed under a Catholic Parliament. I am not now concerned to argue whether it is necessary that the Imperial Parliament, in relinquishing its control over the domestic affairs of Ireland, should set aside these Irish revenues to provide for the cost of Irish education, because that question was decided when the Committee resolved to allocate a portion of the Irish residuary share of reserved taxation to the Queen's College, Belfast. We then came to the conclusion, on representations made by the Members for Ulster, that unless such a provision were inserted in this Bill the interests of higher education in the North-East of Ireland would be imperilled. We then fixed a sum not calculated to provide for future developments, but at any rate sufficient to enable the work of the college to be carried on upon its existing scale under the altered conditions produced by the War. In assigning this sum we were assisted by the recommendations of the University Grants Committee of the Treasury.
We now propose similar financial support for the University Institutions under the Southern Parliament. We are not now suggesting a capital grant, although that may be necessary. We are not proposing to finance extensions, and the figures recommended for the three colleges of the Southern University, are those already accepted by the Treasury on the recommendation of the University Grants Committee, as essential to the efficient discharge of existing functions. No doubt Southern Ireland will find it necessary to vote additional sums in aid of those colleges and the National University of Ireland. I think it is highly probable that those colleges, following the example of many university institutions in this country, will appeal to private munificence to assist them in the difficult task they are trying to perform. We are not attempting to provide for developments, but we are proposing to offer to the teaching staff of these colleges the security that they will not suffer by reason of the political change caused by the passing of this Bill.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Are these grants being paid now?

Mr. FISHER: Yes, they are. I come now to Trinity College, a distinguished institution which dates back to the reign of Queen Elizabeth, and which has done so much for the development of education in Ireland. It has lived upon its own endowments, and framing its own curriculum and granting its own degrees upon terms prescribed by itself, it has enjoyed the untrammelled freedom of Oxford and Cambridge. Like Oxford and Cambridge, Trinity College, Dublin, has experienced the rude shock of war, and it has, like Oxford and Cambridge, concluded that its ancient revenues are no longer adequate to enable it to perform the great task which is incumbent upon it. As the Committee is well aware, Oxford and Cambridge have already applied for State grants, and have already received provisional grants from the Treasury pending the Report of the Royal Commission, of which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) is the chairman.
Trinity College has also received a grant from the State, through the University Grants Committee, but it is a non-recurrent grant of £12,000 designed to make good the ravage and loss of the War, and it has not yet received any recurrent grant from the State. The Royal Commission, under the distinguished chairmanship of Sir Archibald Geikie, has prepared a report upon the needs and the reforms necessary at Trinity College, but has not yet presented it, and consequently we cannot announce its recommendations. I have, however, through the courtesy of the chairman of that Commission, been furnished with an advance copy of their Report, and I have come to the conclusion, upon all the evidence submitted to me, that the sum mentioned in the Amendment, which corresponds with the estimate framed by the college itself of its own immediate needs, would be a fair equivalent to the sums already recognised by the Treasury as appropriate for the colleges of the National University.
Consequently, I have no hesitation in asking the Committee to accept this sum as a reasonable contribution. Of course, it does not go the, whole way; it is not intended to finance developments, and it must be accepted rather as a minimum contribution. The Committee may feel
that this perpetual charge on the Irish residuary share of reserved taxes is saddling the Legislature with a heavy burden. I quite admit the force of that argument, but, in reply, I would urge two considerations. First of all, the sums mentioned in this Amendment are not maximum but minimum amounts; and secondly, it will be open to Parliament to review this provision, in pursuance of recommendations coming from the Irish Governments or conveyed to it through the Irish representatives at Westminster. If a plain and obvious case were to be made out for reduction at some future time, I cannot believe Parliament would refrain from agreeing to the necessary action. On these grounds I have no hesitation in recommending this Amendment to the Committee.

Sir W. WHITLA: I object to the small sum which is proposed to be given to the Belfast University. I noticed, however, that the Minister for Education spoke of it as Queen's College, Belfast. May I remind him that it has ceased to be a college and it is now a university. When I moved an Amendment to this Clause in Committee, I pointed out that it was impossible to go on with this small sum. I think if these sums are being given to provincial colleges, it is necessary that we should have in Belfast nearly double this amount. I think the amount proposed is grossly unjust in connection with the university which I represent. On this point I make another appeal to the Minister for Education that at a time when you are so generous with your money you cannot leave the University of Belfast to starve. If it were a college it would be different, but I want again to remind the right hon. Gentleman that it is a university performing all the functions of a university, and it incurs all the extra expenses necessary to carry on a university. I hope it is not too late for the right hon. Gentleman to do something more in this direction.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: The hon. Baronet, in making an appeal to the Government on behalf of Queen's University, Belfast, has not quite appreciated the fact that the same provision in the Bill has been made for all Universities, and that in view of the well-known attitude towards education of Leaders in Northern Ireland there is every proba-
bility that a more generous provision will be made there. I think it is most necessary, having regard to the grant to Queen's University, Belfast, that a corresponding obligation should be laid upon the Southern Parliament to support the Universities in its area. The hon. Baronet must have rather overlooked the financial position in reading this new Clause, because he said to the Government, "If you are so generous with your money, you will do something more for the North." As a matter of fact, it is not British money at all. It is Irish money. It is not to come out of the Imperial contribution; that is to be a first charge on the Irish revenue This is a purely domestic matter, and, although I am sure the Committee will agree with the hon. Baronet that University College, Belfast, deserves more money, I do not think really it is a matter we need consider at this particular moment, because this proposal does not refer to Belfast one way or the other. It is simply a corresponding provision which is put in for the South of Ireland. Personally I cordially welcome the proposal of the Government.

Sir F. BANBURY: I want to ask two questions. The first is, is it quite certain that these charges will fall on the Irish Parliament and the Irish taxpayer, and not on the English taxpayer?

Mr. FISHER: Yes.

Sir F. BANBURY: I am glad to hear that. It is one good thing, at any rate. My other point may, I hope, be a good omen. My right hon. Friend appears to-day rather in the garb of an economist. He says, "I do not want to provide money for future extensions, but I want to keep things going as they are." Has my right hon. Friend at last awakened to the fact that we are now a poor country and must economise in education just as much as in anything else? May we take this as an augury of what will be his position when he comes to deal with English education?

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the. Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Establishment of Second Houses of the Parliaments of Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland.)

(1) It shall be the duty of the Council of Ireland, at or as soon as may be after their
906
first meeting, to frame a scheme for the establishment of second Houses of the Parliaments of Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland.
(2) The scheme shall specify the titles of the respective Houses and the number of Members thereof, the manner in which the Members are to be chosen, whether by appointment, or election, or otherwise, and in particular the constituencies for which the elected Members, if any, are to be returned and the number of Members to be returned by such constituencies, and shall define the relations of the two Houses of each Parliament to one another, and may contain such incidental and consequential provisions as the Council think proper, including provisions for the amendment of this Act.
(3) A scheme framed under this Section shall be submitted forthwith to the House of Commons of Southern Ireland and the House of Commons of Northern Ireland for their consideration, and if the scheme is confirmed by identical Acts of the Parliaments of Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland it shall have effect as if enacted in this Act, but may be repealed or altered by identical Acts of those Parliaments.
(4) The House of Commons of Southern Ireland or of Northern Ireland may return to the Council any scheme submitted to them under this Section with suggestions for the amendment thereof, and the Council shall thereupon take the suggestions into consideration, and if they think fit frame a new scheme giving effect to all or any of the suggestions.—[Sir L. Worthington-Evans.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I beg to move "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This new Clause seeks to deal with a very difficult question. I am going to be quite frank with the Committee and tell it what has happened in regard to it. The Cabinet Committee in considering the draft of the Bill, went carefully into the question of a one-chamber or a two-chamber system, and at the same time, in the course of the examination, it considered various possible forms of a Second Chamber which might be set up if it were decided to adopt the two-chamber system. The Bill as introduced contained no provision for a Second Chamber, but in Committee my right hon. Friend, the First Lord of the Admiralty, after considerable debate, promised that certain things should be done. He said the Government had accepted the principle of a Second Chamber for the two Irish Parliaments and he undertook between then and the Report stage to place on the Paper a definite scheme for the constitu-
tion of a Second Chamber both in the North and in the South. This new Clause is submitted in fulfilment of that pledge The Government had before it two alternatives in dealing with this question. They could ask the Committee itself to formulate a constitution for the Second Chamber and could force that constitution on the Irish. Their other alternative, and the one which they have adopted, was to set up machinery by this Bill for constituting Second Chambers by agreement between the two Parliaments. I hope to show the Committee that they are wise in adopting that alternative if they wish, as they certainly do, the Second Chamber to be useful and to function properly.
The Second Chamber would be quite useless unless it had power to protect the minority which the First Chamber had not succeeded sufficiently in doing. The case urged in Committee was that there is a minority in the Southern Parliament which an elected First Chamber might not be able to protect and there is a minority in the Northern Parliament also which an elected First Chamber might be unable to protect. Unless the constitution of the Second Chamber was such that it did in fact protect the minority, it would be useless. The Government had to consider of what the minorities in the two Chambers consisted, and how far it was possible by an Act of this House in setting up Second Chambers to protect those minorities. What is the line of division? Unfortunately, at this moment it is a line of religious feeling. In the South there is a minority of Protestants; in the North there is a minority of Catholics, and these minorities are the minorities which it is hoped and intended the Second Chambers shall in fact protect. If the constitution of the Second Chamber were based on election there would be no protection at all, because the Second Chamber would contain practically the same proportion of Catholics and Protestants as the First Chamber, and if the First Chamber did not sufficiently protect the minority, you could not by means of an elected Second Chamber get effective protection for it.
There is another method, the method of nomination. I want the Committee to consider for a moment what a nominated Second Chamber means. It means, not
choosing the best men within the area of the Parliament for the purpose of nomination as Senators, or Members of the Second Chamber—not the best men, but men in the South who are Protestants and would represent the minority of Protestants, and men in the North who are Catholics and would represent the minority of Catholics there. It is essential, if you are going to rely upon a Second Chamber, to protect the minority, and if the minority is in fact a religious minority, a minority separated on religious grounds, then it will be necessary to consider religious aspects when you come to nominate the Second Chamber. That seems a formidable obstacle to getting a nominated Second Chamber that will work properly. The Convention, it is true, by a majority were willing to adopt the method of nomination for the Second Chamber, but if I remember rightly, the Ulster representatives from the first objected to a nominated Second Chamber. My recollection is that they said their Parliament would be a highly democratic Parliament, and they could not for a moment agree to allow themselves to have a Second Chamber which was nominated. It is quite true that in the discussions in Committee here some hon. Members, sp aking for Ulster, seemed to contemplate that there might possibly be a partly elected and a partly nominated Second Chamber.
5.0 P.M.
Nevertheless, it would be a formidable task for this Parliament to force upon a democratic subsidiary Parliament, a nominated system, unless by agreement they are willing to accept it. The Government have decided to adopt the second course and to set up machinery to bring together the majorities of the two Parliaments, each with a minority in the other Parliament to protect, and to leave it to them to hammer out a scheme. That scheme would be in the nature of a bargain. The South would have a minority of Protestants which would require to be protected, and they would be able to appeal to the majority in the North to come to an agreement, and if such an agreement were arrived at, then each Parliament would be able to obtain protection for its own minority. These two bodies are to be brought together by the Council of Ireland which is to take this matter up as the first which it has to deal with. Hon. Members will re-
member that the Council of Ireland will consist of Members half nominated by the Southern Parliament and the other half nominated by the Northern Parliament. When the Council gets the two bodies together there will be representatives of the minorities in the two Parliaments which require to be protected. It seemed to us that the best chance of agreement between the two Parliaments is for the Irish Council to take the matter in hand. It will fix the constitution of the Parliaments and lay down what shall happen if there is disagreement between the two Chambers, and these powers are of course essential if the minority is to be protected. It may be said that this scheme does not guarantee a Senate at all. I quite agree that if no bargain is made between the two Parliaments by means of the Council it does not, in fact, provide a Second Chamber for the two Parliaments. I am sure that my hon. and gallant Friend is going to make a useful suggestion on the matter presently, and I hope he will direct his attention to this: He will admit that for this purpose an elected Senate would be of no use at all; it would simply reproduce the conditions of the First Chamber, and would be no protection to minorities.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Unless on a special franchise.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: Unless on a special franchise, so that there would be property qualifications, or age qualifications, or some other limiting qualifications. Then, however, there would be exactly the same difficulty with the democratic First Chambers as there would be in the case of a nominated Senate. They would no more regard the man with a property qualification—say a super-tax payer—as a superman entitled to have a veto over the more democratic control, than they would regard the nominated senator as a man who is entitled to control the elected member of the First House. I am afraid that, if that is the only suggestion that my hon. and gallant Friend can make, he will not help us very much. I hope that he will be as frank as I am. There are, in my judgment, insuperable difficulties in the way of the House of Commons setting up the only class of Second Chamber which will in fact protect minorities. If it can be done, it can be done by agreement be-
tween the two Parliaments, and such a Chamber as that, set up as the result of an agreement, will not be an irksome, although it will be a protective, Chamber Moreover, it will be likely to last; whereas any Chamber which was really useful, and which was enforced by this Bill, would not be likely to last, and, therefore, would not really be effective. This new Clause provides that, if an agreement is come to and is evidenced by identical Acts of the, two Parliaments, the scheme of the Council shall become the law, and the two Second Chambers shall be set up accordingly. It may be found, however, that when the Council produces its scheme—it may be an absolutely uniform scheme for both Parliaments—that the South have some, perhaps minor, objection to some part of the scheme, or that the North have some minor objection to some part of the scheme. It is competent to either of the two Parliaments to return the scheme to the Council, informing them of what it is that it objects to; and then, if the Council—which, it must not be forgotten, will consist of representatives of the two Houses—sees its way to amend the scheme, and the scheme is accepted by the two Parliaments' identical Acts, it can become law. We believe that, from a practical point of view, this is more likely to give a Second Chamber which will be protective, and which will last, than any other scheme, and, in that belief, I beg to move.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. HOARE: The right hon. Gentleman has just pointed out with great force the many difficulties that there are in setting up Second Chambers in the two Parliamentary areas in Ireland. We have never blinded ourselves to these difficulties. They are very great; but, to listen to the right hon. Gentleman, one would imagine that they are not only great, but insoluble. I cannot help suggesting to him that it would have been better that he should have considered these difficulties when I moved an Amendment on this subject in May last. The difficulties were just as great then as they are now. If they are insoluble now, they were insoluble then. When, however, I moved an Amendment setting up two Chambers, the First Lord of the Admiralty, while admitting that the difficulties were great, by no means suggested that they were insoluble. By that I do not mean that the Government
are necessarily breaking the pledges that they gave in May last. We regret the absence of the First Lord, of the Admiralty. We are very sorry that he is ill, and in nothing that I say do I wish in any way to suggest that the Government have, consciously or unconsciously, gone behind the pledge that the right hon. Gentleman then gave. At the same time, I must make a protest against the attitude taken up by the Minister without Portfolio when to-day he comes down, practically without excuse, and suggests that this is the only course for us to take, because the difficulties are so great that, although last spring they were regarded by the First Lord of the Admiralty as soluble, at the present moment they are insoluble.
The Government, in the spring, gave two pledges. Firstly, they undertook to consult those directly concerned with the necessity of safeguarding minorities. I do not suggest that they should have consulted an outsider like myself, but I must say that, if my information is correct, they have not consulted the, representatives of the minorities of the South and West of Ireland. They really—I will not put it higher than this—have made a very great mistake. Secondly, the Government, in May last, undertook—at any rate, that impression was certainly given to me, and, I believe, to hon. Members on all sides—that they would come here with a scheme definitely drawn up of Second Chambers for the two Irish Parliaments. The Government, so far as I understand, have not consulted the parties directly concerned, and they have not come here with any definite proposal of Second Chambers for the two Irish Parliaments. To the proposal which they make to the Committee today, there are grave practical objections. I made my proposal in the spring with one object alone. I did not think of a Second Chamber as a conservative body which it would be advisable to set up to stop hasty or radical legislation. I made the proposal with the sole object of attempting to find some practical safeguard for the scattered minorities. From one point of view, there may be something to be said for placing this duty upon the Council. I have always thought that the Council should be given far greater powers and responsibility than it at present receives
under the Bill. From the point of view that it will increase the responsibility of the Council, and, possibly, help to bring together the North and the South, there is something to be said for the Government's proposal. But I should like to ask, in passing, why, if Irishmen are to be entrusted with the constitution of their Second Chamber, they should not also be entrusted with the constitution of their First Chamber. I could pursue that line of argument, and say that it is very curious to hear the Government making a proposition of this kind to-day, when, time after time, during the discussions on this Bill, they have set their face against the idea of allowing Irishmen to create their own constitution or to manage in their own way the responsible services or administration.
To speak generally, there may be something to be said for the Council undertaking duties of this kind. In the present case, however, the immediate need is not so much to give greater powers to the Council as to provide immediately and without further delay a practical safeguard for minorities. What will be the effect of the Government's new Clause as an immediate minority safeguard? Let me draw the attention of the Committee to the wording of the Clause. It says that it shall be the duty of the Council—not immediately, but as soon as may be after their first meeting—to frame a scheme for the establishment of Second Chambers. "As soon as may be" seems to me to be a very vague expression, and I understand, from the Government Amendment which the Committee has just passed upon an earlier line of the Bill, that there is some, subtle distinction between "forthwith" and "as soon as may be." It seems to me that party feeling will be most bitter in Southern Ireland, not in the indefinite future, but in the immediate present. Safeguards, then, should come into operation at once, and should not be dependent upon some such indefinite phrase as "as soon as may be." Otherwise, while the Council is producing its proposal, the minority in the South and West may have been already destroyed. Secondly, the Second Chambers are only to be accepted as an integral part of the Irish Constitution if both Parliaments pass identical Acts agreeing with the proposal. What is to happen if the Southern Parliament is not functioning, and a Crown Colony Executive is taking its
place? In that case, I imagine, there, will not be a Council at all.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: There will be.

Sir S. HOARE: That seems to me to add to the confusion. I should have thought the objections the right hon. Gentleman had made against the idea of setting up a Second Chamber as undemocratic had extraordinarily little weight. It would be a most remarkable state of affairs when you have a Council of the North meeting representatives from the Executive Committee of the South with the duty imposed upon them of creating what I imagine is to be a democratic Second Chamber for the South. But apart from that question let me ask my right hon. Friend this second question. What is to happen if the two Parliaments refuse to pass identical Acts? This seems to be most probable. In the first place there is the precedent of the Convention, when the representatives of the North and the South could not agree, and I foresee the same thing happening upon the Council with reference to this proposal. Secondly the Second Chamber which is required by the North is admittedly not the Second Chamber that is required by the South. The Northern Parliament, it has been said on several occasions by the representatives of Ulster, wants an elected Senate. If the safeguard of the Unionists in the South and West is to be valid at all, the Senate of the South and West must be a nominated one. In view of that fact, are the Parliaments likely to agree? They certainly will not agree upon the same kind of Senate. If that is the case, is the Council to be free to recommend one kind of Senate for the North and another for the South? Is it to be free to recommend a Senate for the South and no Senate at all for the North? And if it is to have this freedom the question suggests itself to me: Why bring the Council into the question at all, and not rather allow each Parliament to recommend for itself its own Senate? Those questions—in my view very relevant and practical questions—make me think that the Government proposal is not a practical means of creating the Senates or of safeguarding minorities. It seems to me that we must be the guardians of these scattered minorities in
Ireland. In the present state of public opinion in Ireland, neither in the Southern nor in the Northern area, nor indeed in the Council, will minorities, it seems to me, have a chance. It is therefore not fair to the minorities to leave their fate in the hands of bodies in which they will not be represented, and which will be bitterly biased against them. The Government, therefore, in making this proposal, is asking the House to shift the very heavy responsibility that is imposed upon all Members by the existence of these scattered minorities upon a body which may not come immediately into existence, which if it does come into existence is not likely to agree, and, if it agrees, is likely to be biased against the minorities for whom the Second Chamber is to be a safeguard. In view of these facts the Government proposal does not seem to me to provide the safeguard that we demanded last May, and which I believe is demanded by an overwhelming majority upon all sides of the House.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: My hon. and learned Friend who moved the original Amendment to set up two Senates in the South and North of Ireland respectively, and who drew the pledge on that subject from the First Lord of the Admiralty, has, I think, taken a very generous interpretation in the Government's favour of what was then said, because my opinion is that the Government has most distinctly broken a Parliamentary pledge. I have looked up what the First Lord of the Admiralty said on 18th May. He said:
What the Government propose to do now is definitely to accept the principle of a Second Chamber for the two Irish Parliaments."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th May, 1920, col. 1267, Vol. 129.]
He said further:
The Government undertake between now and Report to place on the Paper a definite scheme for the constitution of the Second Chamber."—["OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th May, 1920, col. 1268, Vol. 129.]
There are further passages which made it quite clear that the Government at that time contemplated laying down in the Constituent Act how that Second Chamber should be organised. That statement was not made on the spur of the moment. On 10th May, that is eight days previously, we had a Debate on an Amendment which I moved to set up one Senate for the whole of Ireland. It was
considered at some length and very much opinion was expressed in favour of a Second Chamber. The Government thought it over for eight days, and then, on my hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment, having all the difficulties of the case before them, in a very sympathetic speech from the First Lord of the Admiralty, who was in an exceptional position for judging the difficulties and peril of the scattered minorities in the South, the Government announced its decision that it would allow a Second Chamber and that it would bring forward a definite scheme.
This is no scheme at all. The Government must know perfectly well that it can never lead to the creation of a Second Chamber in the early tumultuous days of Irish self-government. The proposal of the Government sets up two distinct processes. First of all, the Council has to frame a scheme. My hon. and gallant Friend has shown that you could not expect a scheme to be framed by the Council before the Greek Kalends. The Irish Council is to consist of twenty Orangemen and twenty Sinn Feiners. That is the inevitable result of the Government, at the bidding of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Carson), refusing an Amendment that the Irish Council should be chosen from the Irish Legislature by proportional representation. The Government, by setting up this Council of extreme views, where no middle opinion can make itself heard, condemned that Council to complete sterility, and they apparently realise it, since by subsequent decisions they are emasculating the Council and taking away its powers. It is quite clear that the Orangemen will not vote for a nominated Senate after all they have said on the subject in the Irish Convention and since, and it is also quite clear that in the early days of the Southern Parliament the extreme opinion which will be there represented will not want any Senate at all, because they will suspect any Senate of a British bias. But assume for a moment that you do get the miracle of an agreement. It is just possible that you might, because there is a provision in the Bill that the quorum for the Irish Council shall be fifteen, and if twenty-five members suffered from broken heads or from an epidemic of influenza, you might conceivably get an agreement on a scheme for a Senate. Then this
scheme is only to be framed for the consideration of the two Houses. They need not accept that or any other scheme, and of course they would avoid identical Acts or all possibility of passing identical Acts by endless disagreement. Surely no First Chamber, especially in the conditions which will be probable in the early days of Irish self-government, can be expected readily to limit its own powers. No First Chamber is a likely authority to set up a Second Chamber to interfere with its freedom, and therefore from the nature of the case, if you are to have an effective Second Chamber at all, you must impose it from without.
Even if a Second Chamber eventuates in the fullness of time you will not have it during the critical years when it will be most necessary. My expectation is that Ireland, like every other country, eventually will develop responsibility. One has seen, even in our time, shambles brought about by political organisation in other parts of the world. We have seen how, in the governments of the Balkans, the various struggling nationalities by their holocausts of victims encouraged murder and every kind of outrage, and yet, faced with the responsibility for self-government, these Balkan races have since then become orderly and civilised communities. That may be very far off in Ireland, but presumably the Government, in proposing self-government for that country, hope that eventually they will achieve that end. But during those first years you must have some protection for your unpopular minorities. The Prime Minister on 22nd December last year, in outlining the provisions of this Bill, said there would be searching Clauses for the protection of the rights of minorities in Ireland. That pledge has been completely ignored. The minority have stood by the British connection and they have stood by it not in British interests, but in what they considered the widest Irish interests, and they have earned hostility from powerful sections of their own countrymen. That minority under the Bill will admittedly only get from a half to a third of the representation in the First Chamber to what it is entitled by its numbers. The Government, in spite of the Prime Minister's pledge, turned down in the Committee stage our proposal that this minority should have special representation in the House of Commons—a proposal which we
did not invent, but which was adopted by the majority of the Irish Convention. They turned it down on democratic grounds, which are hardly applicable to the South of Ireland under present conditions. But we want a Second Chamber not only in the interest of the Southern Unionists, but in the interest of the Imperial connection itself. because in the first year the Southern Parliament, if it ever comes into being, and gets further than the Crown colony stage, will be straining its constitutional powers to show hostility and to create difficulties for Great Britain. Will it not be of enormous importance in that period to have moderating influences and opinions, other than the dominant political section, who will probably be in favour of British interests. The right hon. Gentleman challenged my hon. Friend to bring forward an alternative. That is hardly our business, but we have made it quite plain what is in our minds. An alternative lies open for all to read in the Report of the Irish Convention. I do not say that that Report, in many of its fundamentals, is any longer possible to put into force, but there is nothing in their conclusions about the Irish Senate which could not be adopted for the south of Ireland just as well to-day as when the Convention reported two years ago. The Irish Convention reported by an overwhelming majority in favour of a nominated Senate of 64 members. That was carried on division by a majority of 48 to 19, and I think the 19 were made up almost entirely of the Ulster Unionist representatives, with possibly one or two Labour members. The attitude of the Nationalists was made clear in a Report signed by 22 of their number. They said:
The Upper House should consist of nominated and ex officio Members, the Peers elected by their own order and the other Members elected by their own class. The two Houses would sit and vote together on all questions in dispute between them, including Money Bills.
That kind of Second Chamber is not likely to commend itself to this House. We test these things by our British catchwords, and it rather difficult, perhaps, to justify it on our recent constitutional evolution, but the South of Ireland does not care about these catchwords. They have a very different idea of democracy from that which exists in this country. The 22 Nationalists who signed that Report, including the hon. Member for the Falls Division (Mr. Devlin), probably had in
view not only the protection of the Southern Unionists, and also their own protection and the protection of moderate opinion from the wild men of Irish politics. If Ulster does not wish for a nominated Second Chamber there is no reason why she should not, as I think the right hon. Member for the Duncairn Division (Sir E. Carson) suggested, have a different Second Chamber from that in the South, and that Second Chamber could quite easily be provided for in this Bill and by this House. I do urge upon the Government that the continued flouting of the opinion of the Irish Convention must have a very bad effect in Ireland. It must discourage the formation and expression of moderate, opinion. Let me remind the Committee how the recommendations of all parties in the South of Ireland, expressed only two years ago, has been treated by this Bill. They recommended that there should be one Parliament. The Bill sets up two. They recommend that there should be Irish fiscal autonomy. The Bill refuses it. Now, as a last point, the Bill takes away the fruition of the promise of the one remaining safeguard for minorities, which was left over to the Report stage. It is no answer to put us off with doctrinaire statements that it is against Federalism or against the Dominion status, or against any of the other systems which have been tried in the Colonies. On this subject there are precedents in various federal systems which would quite justify a Second Chamber. Therefore, if you consider Ireland as she is you must do what seems best to meet her particular difficulties.
The Government seems to me in this matter to have had an opportunity of conciliating moderate opinion, but instead they have deliberately inflamed it. The result of their manœuvres, I am sorry to say, is that everyone in Ireland will come to mistrust them. The Sinn Feiners already hate them. Southern Unionists recognised their difficulty. They saw that the passage of the Act of 1914 committed the Government to the Home Rule experiment, and they understood that their private interests must necessarily be sacrificed where they clashed with the overwhelming need for an Irish settlement. The provision of a Senate expected by all parties in the South in no way complicated the settlement. It might have fostered the growth of middle opinion. It might have helped
to save Ireland from that curse of extreme courses which has always been the curse of her policy. Thousands in the South of Ireland, whose liberties may depend on this Second Chamber, have necessarily been watching how this House would carry out what was understood to be a definite pledge, and I cannot help saying that I think the policy of the Government and their failure to keep this promise must make the Southern Unionists reluctantly join their enemies in Ireland in the conclusion that the keeping of a promise with regard to an Irish question cannot be relied upon from the present Government.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I think the numbers attending this Debate and the amount of interest shown in this new Clause is a very fair measure of the reality behind the Clause. That is to say, there is practically no reality behind this new Clause, and the Clause is never meant to be operative, and never will be operative. It seems to me that by refusing to do what they have done in every other part throughout the Bill, namely, to give quite clear and definite constituent powers, or to withhold quite definite constituent powers from the Irish Parliament, and by attempting to proceed in the manner in which they are proceeding, they are merely getting out of the proposal to set up Second Chambers altogether. It is perfectly clear that, whatever happens, the Bill we are now considering never will apply to Southern Ireland, or anything like it. No Southern Irish Parliament and no person in Southern Ireland, whatever his political creed, wants this Bill, or anything like it, or is even prepared to work it, and the sole reality behind this Bill is Ulster. The six Ulster counties apparently want the Bill and are prepared to work it. Therefore, the only thing that is worth our doing this afternoon is to find out whether the Ulster Members want a Second Chamber, and if so what sort of second Chamber they want. Anything else is an academic discussion and simply a waste of time.
I am quite sure that the Council of Ireland, if it did meet, and even if it did draw up a scheme, would never succeed in getting identical Acts passed by the two Parliaments. Supposing you had a Council of Ireland, a real Council, and not a half Crown colony sort of Council, and suppose they did produce a
scheme, let the Committee remember that, if one of the subordinate Parliaments refused to accept that scheme, the Second Chamber for the other would go by the board too. That is how I read this Clause. Therefore, I think there is not the slightest chance that by this machinery you will get Second Chambers either in the north or in the south. I am quite certain that in any circumstances, however you proceed, it is folly to imagine that the sort of Second Chamber that you want in the south would be the sort of Second Chamber that you ought to have in the north, or vice versa. On the Committee stage of the Bill the Ulster Members made it perfectly clear in regard to any Second Chamber, and it was a point on which they attached the most importance, that they should keep out the hierarchy. They did not want the Protestant archbishop or Cardinal Logue or the Moderator of the Presbyterian Church or anybody of that sort in their Second Chamber. In that they were probably reflecting Ulster opinion perfectly truly, but I am sure that is not the opinion of the south of Ireland, and I am sure it is not the opinion of the Unionists or of the Nationalists in the south. We always hear from the Ulster representatives that in Ulster there are no moderate men. The only two moderate men from Ulster that I know of are the right hon. Member for Duncairn and the hon. Member for the Falls Division of Belfast. They are the two nearest approaches to moderate opinion I have ever heard of in Ulster. In the south of Ireland, however, there are some moderate men.

Sir E. CARSON: Who are they? You are the only one I ever met.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: There are a great many Southern Unionists of moderate opinion. There were Southern Unionists in the Convention. There is Lord Middleton, Lord Oranmore and Brown, and people of that sort, and unless you get a Second Chamber in Southern Ireland they will never get a voice in the affairs of their country. Under this proposal of the Government no Second Chamber can ever be brought into being. It is a very poor result of the hopes that were held out to those who represent the Southern Unionist point of view in this House, to bring forward now this most shabby, most unlikely, and most impracticable proposal.

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): My right hon. Friend (Sir L. Worthington-Evans), in proposing this Amendment, put the case for the Government so frankly that, in spite of the criticisms to which we have listened, there is little that I can add. We have heard only speeches in criticism of this proposal. That is not an uncommon thing in Committee, and we should have had precisely the same discussion on any proposals which any human being could have brought forward for establishing these Second Chambers. Let me point out exactly what is our difficulty. I am much obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend (Sir S. Hoare) for what he has said about the attitude of the Government, and my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty. We have had a difficulty in this matter because the First Lord of the Admiralty has been ill, and we have not had the benefit of his views in the decision to which we have come. I am very glad, therefore, that my hon. Friend made no suggestion of breach of faith, because we in the Cabinet who decided this matter had a greater responsibility than if one of us had given the undertaking which my right hon. Friend gave.
Long before this Bill was introduced the Cabinet Committee considered the question of a Second Chamber, with all the arguments for and against and the advantages and disadvantages, and we came to the conclusion that on the whole it was better not to attempt it. Then the discussion came on in this House, and, as far as my recollection goes, there was a general feeling in favour of Second Chambers. My right hon. Friend then said, on behalf of the Government, that ho was prepared to accept the principle of a Second Chamber, and he undertook to introduce a scheme for the constitution of such a Chamber. If you take the words literally, what we have proposed is such a scheme. I quite agree that what my right hon. Friend had in mind was that he intended to introduce a hard and fast scheme. He said then, after pointing out the difficulties, "We will endeavour to introduce a scheme." We have not introduced a hard and fast scheme, and I will tell the House frankly that we could not think of any scheme which it would be possible for us to defend in this House. That is the position.
I may point out what our difficulties were, though I am afraid I am only repeating what was said by my right hon. Friend. The first difficulty was that of having a Second Chamber at this time of day in any Parliament which you set up. We Members of the Government have got to face the question of the reform of our own Second Chamber next Session. I ask the House of Commons to picture to themselves what would be the reception of any proposals, suppose you were starting afresh, for a nominated Second Chamber in this country. Obviously it would not be listened to. It is obvious that an elected Second Chamber, however you arranged it, would fail absolutely to do what everyone wants, that is, secure the protection of minorities. That would be hopeless. As regards the South and West of Ireland, it is possible that, if you were to take a high property qualification on a very high franchise, that would have the effect of giving a larger representation to Protestants in the South of Ireland. How could such a Second Chamber stand? In these days it is impossible. But consider how it would work in the North of Ireland! Suppose you start a property qualification of that kind in the North, instead of increasing the representation of the minority you would increase the representation of the majority. Obviously, therefore, you could not have any kind of elected Chamber that would give protection to minorities. The principle on which we started, adopting the view of my right hon. Friend, was to take the proposals in the Convention, and work out Second Chambers for both Parliaments from them. We actually prepared a scheme. We considered it in the Cabinet, and came to the conclusion that it was absolutely unworkable. It is quite true that such a scheme would give a considerable representation to the minority in the South of Ireland, but in the North it would do nothing of the kind.
The idea of the Convention was to take certain representative bodies, like chambers of commerce, county councils, and the churches. In the South of Ireland you would get in that way, I believe, a very fair representation of the minority, because of the leading position which so many Protestants have in the community. When you come to the North, it is no protection unless it is composed—I would rather not use the words "Catholics"
and "Protestants" but we know that that is the real difference at the present moment—you could not get a selection from chambers of commerce, and county councils, and take Catholics without it being obvious that they were not selected as representatives, but because they were Catholics. That could not work.
Another thing said by my right hon. Friend on the occasion to which reference has been made was that if a Second Chamber were established for the protection of minorities in one of the Parliaments, it must be equally established in the other Parliament. If it is needed in one it is needed in both. It has been said that the only interest of this House or of the Government in the matter is Ulster. That is not true. I cannot discuss this big question, because it would be out of order, but I think that one of the great misfortunes in dealing with this matter is that, largely I am afraid because of the reversion to party politics, everyone has minimised and made little of the tremendous advance which has been made by Unionists in the direction of giving some government to the South of Ireland. I think that hon. Members forget altogether that in every essential detail this Bill, which the Unionist party are now accepting, gives a more generous measure of self-government to Ireland than the Home Rule Act of 1914. That is a fact.
We as a Government could not take the responsibility of saying, "We are going to give protection to the minority in the South, if we cannot devise a method of doing the same thing in the North." We have failed to produce a solution which we could defend in the House of Commons. To those who criticise us I will say that if they produced a scheme, it would be open to the same amount of criticism and a great deal more than that which is directed against us. Our scheme is not so bad as hon. Gentlemen have suggested. It is quite true that in present conditions we cannot hope for agreement between these two Parliaments, but it is quite possible, presuming that there were permanent goodwill, that it would be done, and remember—we are divided from hon. Members on the other side of the House on this—our whole policy must fail unless they do so. I do not believe that Ireland permanently will refuse the measure of self-government which we are giving. If they accept it and work it,
which means work it in the spirit more or less of desiring to make it acceptable, and which means also with regard to those in the South who desire a united Ireland, that they have accepted a principle that they must work it so as to inspire confidence in the North, then they will have the strongest inducement to work it with goodwill.
It is possible that no Second Chamber will be set up. To that extent we have failed. We do not guarantee a Second Chamber, but in the South I believe it is possible, apart altogether from political and religious difficulties, that there will be a strong body of opinion which does desire the check of a Second Chamber, and I am convinced of this, though I do not know whether my right hon. Friend and his colleagues agree entirely with what I say. I know the people of Belfast fairly well. I believe that they are what is called "the most advanced democracy in these islands." As long as you have the present political differences they will be united, and there will be no change of the kind to which I refer. But if you eliminate this question of Home Rule, I am not at all sure that a Second Chamber will not be a very necessary thing in the North of Ireland also. Does not the Committee see that that means, assuming that this Bill is worked with anything like goodwill, that there is a real chance of agreement in Ireland.
Consider what are the advantages and inducements to make a Second Chamber of this kind. It is not merely that both Parliaments might desire it for their own reason, but there is a stronger reason. The majority in the North are keenly interested in, and they have the warmest sympathy with, the minority in the South of Ireland. Then in the South the majority have the keenest interest in, and deepest sympathy with, the minority in the North. How is either to be protected except by agreement? There is an inducement to both to try to set up some, scheme which will be based simply on the protection of minorities in both Parliaments. We cannot propose any scheme which would stand examination in this House. We are not prepared to introduce it, because we cannot defend it, and I believe that the best chance of a real Second Chamber in each Parliament, which will be welcomed, would be by agreement between the Parliaments of Ireland.
By this Amendment we have made it incumbent upon the Lord Lieutenant to summon them; and have this discussed, and we have good reason to hope—not, of course, so long as Ireland is in the state in which it is to-day; as long as it is in that state no Home Rule scheme can work—but on the assumption which we make that this is not going to be permanent, that there is going ultimately to be an agreement, there is a better chance of securing what we want by agreement than by any scheme which we could put before the House.

6.0 P.M.

Sir E. CARSON: I am very sorry that the Government have been unable to frame a scheme for the Second Chamber. As I said when this matter was in Committee, I think the Ulster democracy would prefer to have no Second Chamber, but at the same time the South of Ireland has demanded a Second Chamber. In the Convention, as far as I understand it, they were willing to have a partly nominated Second Chamber. I am sure the Government are perfectly bona fide in the matter, but I cannot help regretting that they have been unable to evolve a scheme. I do not see that there was any hard and fast rule laid down as to why the two Second Chambers should not be absolutely different, why, in point of fact, there should not be a Second Chamber in the South and none in the North. All the circumstances are entirely different in the South and the North. In the South the Protestant minority, as far as existing conditions are concerned, will be without any representation whatsoever in the Parliament. That is not how it will be in the North. There the Catholic minority will have considerable representation in Parliament. As I understand the calculation that has been made, it will mean that in a Parliament of 52 they will have anything from 15 to 20 members, and perhaps more. That is a considerable nucleus to start with and a very different condition of affairs from what will reign in the South. If the Government are unable to frame a scheme, what more is there to be said and what more is there to be done, unless someone is able to produce a scheme here in this House and we can discuss it in the open? I am inclined to think that there is a good deal in what the Leader of the House has said, that it is only when you come to set up a scheme and hear it
criticised that you find the great difficulties in the way.
Under these circumstances, may I, for what it is worth, join in expressing a hope that this Council, the liaison between North and South, is not going to be the impotent body that a number of people think it will be in regard to this Bill. But for the curious course taken by Members on the other side of the House in refusing to discuss this Bill, which, I think, is a very unfortunate way of conducting Parliamentary business, I should have thought that the biggest advance towards unity in Ireland was this conception of this Council. The Council will be the representatives of the Parliament of the North and the representatives of the Parliament of the South, and they are to come together, and, as far as they can, to frame measures and suggestions for the benefit of the whole of Ireland. Is not that the one thing you want to get at the present moment? Is not what you want the coming together of the North and the South? When the question of Home Rule has fallen away from being the most active question of politics in Ireland, is there not at least a possibility that when the North have said, "We have not been put under the South," and the South have said, "We are no longer dictated to by England," is there not some hope that in meeting together to do what was best for the North and for the South, these Irishmen may some day say, "After all, let the dead past bury its dead and let us shake hands for the good of Ireland"? Does this Committee really think that a better way of starting would be to say, "We must coerce Ulster." That is what is at the back of the minds of many hon. Gentlemen opposite. That is really the gravamen of the charge against us. They think, "You ought to have been coerced long ago; you ought to be coerced now." If you start on the making of unity in Ireland on that principle, I would like to know what will be the result.
So far as I am concerned I join most heartily with the Leader of the House in the most earnest hope that this Council, when it meets, may show an example, as a start, of the willingness of the majority in the North to help to protect the minority in the South, and the willingness of the majority in the South to help to protect the minority in the North. It is only in that way that you will ever make
a beginning, and, notwithstanding all the troubles of the present moment, I am optimistic enough to hope that it is in this Council, leaving the Parliament perfectly free, that there is the germ of a united Ireland in future There is one question I would put to the Leader of the House. I observe that the form of the Clause we are discussing is that it is the duty of the Council to frame this scheme and that it must then be considered by the Parliaments of Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland, and that they can send it up or reject or, it may be, send it back again. If no Second Chamber is set up, has the Parliament the right to go on with its work?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes.

Sir E. CARSON: That is a matter which ought to be made perfectly definite and clear. All that I can find out in the Clause is that the Council are to take the suggestion into consideration, and, if they think fit, frame a new scheme giving effect to all or any of the suggestions. In the meantime, is the Parliament free to act? If, eventually, no Second Chamber is passed, does the whole thing come to an end or are we to know that it is a one Chamber constitution that has been set up? It is a very important matter. I think that probably the answer will be that the Single Chamber goes on, but I cannot see any limitation to the time that the matter is to go on.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: If any words are wanted to make the point clear, they must be added. It is the Government intention that, even though a suggestion has been made for a Second Chamber by the Council and it has failed to become incorporated in this Act by identical Acts of the two Chambers, the two Parliaments will go on as Single Chamber systems. It may be at some later date, that there will be a greater likelihood of agreement. The Council can send up for a second time a proposal for Second Chambers. Even on the second occasion, if they do not succeed, the Single Chamber Parliaments would continue.

Colonel NEWMAN: In a humble way, I want to say one word in support of the Government. The hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) complained that the Southern minority had not been consulted. Why were they not
consulted by the Government? The simple reason is that the Government did not know whom to consult. This small Southern minority, some 400,000 individuals, including women and children, have been and are now divided amongst themselves. There is not in this House at the present moment a single Member who has any right by election to speak on behalf of the Unionists of the South of Ireland. There is the hon. Member for Rathmines (Sir M. Dockrell). Where is he? He is not here. The hon. Member for Trinity College was in his place two hours ago. The minute this Debate began he went out. He may have been a wise man or a foolish man, but here we are, trying to discuss this most important point, and there is not a single Member representing Nationalist Ireland here, nor a single Member representing South of Ireland Unionists here. There are only Members like myself and the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Lieut.-Colonel Guinness) who can, to a certain extent, speak for the minority of the South, because we happen to have residences and property there. It is not fair to say that the Government would not consult the minority. The Government would like to consult the minority but do not know whom to consult.
An hon. Member talked about certain people as representing Southern Irish Unionists. They do not really represent them. Mr. Andrew Jameson and others, men of great ability, cannot and do not speak for the Unionists of the South. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds represents the Anti-partition League, which league really was a league to suppress or get round or get over Ulster. We South of Ireland Unionists object to this Bill in toto. We know perfectly well that no safeguard which can be introduced into the Bill will do us any good. I remember Mr. Dillon telling us some years ago that safeguards for the minority were not worth the paper they were written on. If the Government want to protect the minority in the South they can do it in only one way, and that is by maintaining the Union. I have risen to say these few words because I for a long period did not believe that the Government meant to put this Bill through. I congratulate them now, for I believe that they do want to put it through. I at any rate do not feel that I have not been consulted in regard to this Bill.

Sir F. BANBURY: The last speaker has complained that there is no one here to represent the Southern part of Ireland. There are certainly people here who were returned to represent the whole of the Empire, and not one part of it, and they therefore have a right to their opinion, and their opinion is that the interests of the Southern part of Ireland under this Bill are neglected, and therefore they think it is right to express in this House their opinion that those interests ought to be protected. I am sorry the Leader of the House has had to leave, because he is in rather a different position from the Prime Minister, who has been a consistent Home Ruler all through since I have had the honour of his acquaintance for the last 28 or 29 years. The Leader of the House told us that the Unionist party have now accepted this Bill. Have they? I did not know it. Certain members of the Unionist party who have shed their Unionist principles may have accepted this Bill, but there are certainly a very considerable number who have been Unionists all their lives from conviction, and whose convictions have not been shaken by the events of the last few years, and who still maintain, with the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, that the only good Clause in this Bill is Clause 71, which repeals the Government of Ireland Act of 1914. The Leader of the House said that no one had suggested that a Parliamentary bargain had been broken; but I think he was here when the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Lieut.-Colonel Guinness) distinctly said that a Parliamentary bargain had been broken. The First Lord of the Admiralty on the 18th May of this year said here:
What the Government propose to do now is definitely to accept the principle of a Second Chamber for the two Irish Parliaments, both in Southern and Northern Ireland, and the Government undertake between now and Report to place on the Paper a definite scheme for the constitution of Second Chambers both in Northern and Southern Ireland.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to outline what was to be contained in the scheme which was to be practical and effective. The Leader of the House, as I understood him, said that this proposal was a scheme. You can call anything a scheme, but it is certainly not a definite scheme which means something which can be defined, and this is a proposal which cannot be defined. The Minister without
Portfolio, in reply to a question put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Duncairn (Sir E. Carson), said that if these two Chambers did not agree amongst themselves with the Council of Ireland that the single Chambers would go on. As far as I can see there is nothing to prevent single Chambers going on for twenty years or indefinitely. Under those circumstances, how do the Government reconcile that with the pledge given by the First Lord of the Admiralty to place a definite scheme before us? I hope what they are doing now is not what they are going to do next year when they reform the House of Lords, and that they will not simply give us a Second Chamber in nubibus, and then go on with a single Chamber for an undefined time. I do not like, in face of the fact that there are Ulster Members present who know more about the position than I do, to express my view upon the Irish situation. This is the third Home Rule Bill I have seen here since 1893. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Duncairn said that he hoped he saw on this scheme a germ of hope; but I think it is a very little germ, and that there is nothing in the Bill which will germinate. I have seen the Home Rule Bill of 1893 and that of 1912 to 1914, when the present Leader of the House let us out of the House because the Government of that day insisted on putting that Home Rule Bill into force. I can remember that on every one of those occasions, now spread over 28 or 29 years, the same thing was said over and over again, namely, pass the particular Bill under consideration and you will have peace in Ireland. Now we have been shedding our principles, some of us—

The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman must not review the whole Bill, but should address himself to the Question before us.

Sir F. BANBURY: Thank you, Sir, I am sure you will excuse me if I have been led a little bit astray by the Leader of the House and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Duncairn. It might be said that when the First Lord of the Admiralty gave the undertaking to bring in a definite scheme the Government intended to do so and did their best, but found it could not do it. But that argument will not hold good now, and for this reason. The Minister without Portfolio told us that before the introduction
of the Bill they had considered the matter, but were unable to decide on a scheme. But subsequently they were so influenced by the strong feeling in the House that there should be a Second Chamber that they gave an undertaking to bring in a definite scheme on the Report stage. If they come down and say, "We have considered it and we cannot come to any conclusion," then they ought to stand in a white sheet and apologise to the House for having given an undertaking of the kind. It was suggested to the Leader of the House that a scheme recommended by the Irish Convention was possible and he replied that it was not. He said a nominated Chamber was impossible and a Second Chamber elected on a high franchise was also impossible. If you cannot have a Second Chamber nominated or elected on a high franchise then you cannot have one at all. There is no use having one elected on the same franchise as a lower Chamber, because that would only tend to expense, trouble and worry. That being so why does not the Leader of the House come down here and say, "On further consideration we have come to the conclusion that a Second Chamber is impossible, and therefore we regret very much, though we have endeavoured to do so, that we cannot carry out the pledge given"? That would be an intelligible position to take up. I think it will be a decision fraught with disastrous consequences for Ireland. Everybody knows under this proposal there never will be a Second Chamber and the sooner we make up our minds to that the better. In the present state of Southern Ireland, and, as far as one can see, a state that is likely to continue for a long time to come, to put the minority, the best part of the South, the loyal minority who have been loyal to us through all our troubles, without the protection of a Second Chamber seems to me to be the strongest reason for emphasising what I have already expressed, that the only good Clause in this Bill is Clause 71.

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: The speech of the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Ban-bury) is no doubt interesting, but it is quite clear that, so far as the principle of the Bill is concerned, or any attempt to settle the Irish question by legislation or devolution, it is opposed by the right hon. Baronet to-day, as it was at any period since I can remember his Member-
ship of the House of Commons. The right hon. Baronet has neither learned anything nor forgotten anything in that time. He stands just where he was, and I suppose he always will stand there. I know there are charges of inconsistency occasionally directed against men who find in special circumstances the necessity of changing their opinions on political problems, but I prefer that to standing stolidly always on the same ground, and never attempting to solve a problem as it presents itself to me from day to day according to new facts, for fear of transgressing some opinion that I expressed years ago which would be contrary to the real view I now hold. The right hon. and learned Member for Dun-cairn (Sir E. Carson) has hit the situation off, as far as I am concerned. I am bound to confess that, without this Clause, it would be a difficult problem, in face of the universal hostility to the partition of Ireland, to support this Bill, but this Clause makes it possible to do so, as far as I am concerned. I never could see how you could pass a Home Rule Bill, without recognising the difference in the position of the North from that of the South of Ireland, unless you were prepared—and it is useless for our Friends on the Opposition side of the House to look at it from any other point of view—to pass a general Home Rule for Ireland without this safeguard, when you must naturally expect the decisions of either House in its general policy to be in the direction of satisfying, as far as possible, the local and national requirements of one end of Ireland, excluding the interests of the other end from their observation and consideration.
Therefore, it has always been a very serious problem for anyone who has attempted to consider this subject. I have now had the opportunity of hearing it thrashed out hundreds or even thousands of times, till it is almost sickening to have it repeated again and again. Since I have been in the House, one was always faced with this problem, that it was useless to suppose that a general Home Rule Bill without some protection for the North could be enforced upon the North without force of arms, and therefore it was always the stumbling block, and the same thing would apply now, to a certain extent. When you put forward a Home Rule Bill as it is established at present
with two Chambers, and get away from the difficulties of the South coercing the North, then immediately up comes the charge that you are partitioning Ireland, that the hated Saxon is cutting Ireland in two.

The CHAIRMAN: This, again, is going into the Bill generally. The present Clause is only the proposition as to the scheme for two Chambers in the respective two Parliaments in Ireland.

Lieut.-Colonel WARD: I understood the Clause was to establish, if it were agreed upon by both Parliaments, one Council which should be a Second Chamber. [HON. MEMBERS: "A Second Chamber for each!"] I was under the impression—and my observations were intended to approve the suggestion—that if these two Councils could possibly agree upon a scheme by which a Second Chamber could have been established, that unquestionably would be a proposal worth considering, and I should have given it my support.

Major HILLS: I wish most sincerely that the hon. and gallant Member was right and that there was some chance of seeing a single Second Chamber for all Ireland. I want to appeal to the Government to reconsider their decision on this subject. I am not going to talk anything about broken pledges, but I believe the Government are bound, by every obligation of honour and policy, to give protection to the Southern Unionists, and I propose to examine their scheme in the light of that principle. The right hon. and learned Member for Duncairn (Sir E. Carson), in his very interesting speech, told us that he saw in the Bill the germ of a united Ireland and that he shared the hope of the Government that it would lead to future unity. I quite agree that that may be the case, but the case of the Southern Unionists is an urgent and pressing one. It is an immediate case, and to talk of future unity will not assist them. They are in immediate danger, and the danger is all the more great because we have been told by the Minister without Portfolio that the Lower Chamber will function even though the Council should meet and fail to set up a Second Chamber. The first thing we are trying to do is not to establish a democratic constitution for Ireland in this respect; we are out for something much simpler, namely, the protection of the scattered
minorities in the South and West of Ireland, and that protection you can secure by one way alone, a quite undemocratic way, I agree, but you have to do that, or you cannot protect them. They must be secured by one of two forms of Second Chamber—either one nominated or one elected on quite a different basis from the election of the two lower Houses.
The Lord Privy Seal was charmingly frank with the House, as he always is, and he told us in effect that the Government had failed to find a solution, and therefore this difficult problem which has puzzled our Government is thrust on to the newly elected council, a new body with no political experience, and they are expected to solve it. That is not a very promising start for a new Government, especially in the conditions which prevail in Ireland. He next told us that perhaps they might have found a solution, but they were so busy in thinking about a Second Chamber for this country that they could not give it any attention. That is rather a strange argument, but Ireland always has got to wait the convenience of this country, and I was not aware that very much time had been spent on the Second Chamber here. Then he said that a scheme was needed in the North as well as in the South of Ireland and that the two schemes need not be the same. I quite agree. I think you would have quite different Second Chambers in the North and in the South, as my right hon. and learned Friend (Sir E. Carson) has made quite clear. In the North you would have a collective and homogeneous minority, all in the same place, I understand, who can return Members to Parliament, but in the South you have not a single constituency were the Unionists can return one Member. Of course, the two problems are different, and what will suit the North will not suit the South, but it is no good to tell us that just because the North may need a Senate just as much as the South needs it, therefore the South has not to get it. I think that both ought to have it, and the Senate could be quite different in each case.
Then the Leader of the House used a very strange argument. He said the Unionist party, and I think he meant especially the Unionists of Ireland, had accepted this Bill. Well, all honour to the Unionists in Ireland who have fought to improve this Bill, but may I point out that when they accepted this Bill they
relied on the promise of the Government that there should be protection for the Southern Unionists. I cannot believe that the Government even now do not mean to protect the Southern Unionists. The right hon. Gentleman said the problem is too difficult, but surely that is what they have got to solve. Of course it is difficult, but who will find it easier than they find it? It is no good to say that the Council is a democratic body, and that by giving it to them you are consulting Irish opinion. It is a very strange argument from the mouth of the Government, who have never consulted Irish opinion at all. Besides, as I have said, it is not a case of getting the best democratic outfit for a country. It is a case of protecting one scattered class, who cannot under any conceivable system return one single Member to Parliament. The Government have failed, and I think it is quite certain the Council will fail too, for what lower House will set up an assembly which is meant to curb and moderate itself? Of course it will not, unless it is compelled to; and by merely staying away or voting against the proposal of the Council, the Southern representatives can defeat any such scheme. So of course there will not be a scheme for a Senate, and in the meantime, whilst this germ of unity is germinating, evils which are very real will fall on the heads of the Southern Unionists.
There have been two suggestions which I do ask the Government to reconsider, because I am sure they must have considered them. First of all, there is the scheme in the Act of 1914, and that was a scheme for an elected Senate chosen by proportional representation on the basis of the four Provinces, a very good scheme. The second—I think the better —scheme was the Convention scheme, which was for an entirely nominated Senate of 64 members, and nominated from all parts of the community. Surely one of those two schemes could be adopted. In fact, when the Council come to consider it, they must go to one of those two forms, either a nominated Senate, or one elected on a different basis or for a different term from the Lower House, and I should like to know, before this Debate ends, why those schemes have been rejected. I have said all through these Debates that we who sit on these
Benches have not been fortunate in securing the support of my right hon. and learned Friend (Sir E. Carson), and now, on the only occasion when all the representatives of Ulster support the very heterodox doctrines in which we are accused of indulging, I should have thought that the Government would have given way. I hope they will consider that, because my right hon. and learned Friend was quite explicit.
I only want to say again, in conclusion, that the necessity is a real and urgent one It is not a case of forming the best constitution you can and allowing time to perfect it. If you think a nominated Senate is a bad thing, a clog on the development of the country, I suggest the way out in the Act of 1914, which expressly said the Senate was to be nominated for a term of years, and after that was to be elected. Could not the Government compromise on some arrangement of that sort? You cannot pretend that you could hold elections to the Senate in the present unfortunate conditions in the South and West of Ireland. You must nominate a body of some sort; but if you do not like to impose a nominated body for all time, give the Parliament of Southern Ireland or the Parliament of Northern Ireland some change of changing that. I have made several suggestions, and I do hope the Government will consider them. The danger is very imminent and very real, and will arise the very day the Bill is passed into law.

Sir F. BANBURY: There has been enough discussion to entitle us to some answer. I do not think anyone has spoken on behalf of the Government's proposal.

Sir S. HOARE: May I emphasise the appeal just made by my right hon. Friend? I do not think a single speech from any side of the House has been made in favour of the Government's proposal, and the arguments used against it have been many and varied, and I believe they have appealed to the great majority of the Members who have been sitting through this Debate. To put it on the lowest basis, I suggest it would be courteous for some Member of the Government to make some reply to the arguments which have been used.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Really I would appeal to the Government. If they cannot produce any argument in support of their Clause, they, at any rate, might withdraw it, because, after all, the. Bill is for the better government of Ireland by the smoothing of Irish difficulties, and not for the further irritation of Ireland. When the right hon. Member for the Duncairn Division (Sir E. Carson) unites with those who sit on these Benches in condemnation of this Clause, I think it is perfectly certain it is going to stir up an enormous amount of bad feeling in Ireland. I would appeal to the Government, if they cannot justify the Clause by argument, to withdraw it.

Sir F. BANBURY: Might I ask the Minister of Education, who has had a good deal to do with this Bill and who is able to put a gloss upon a difficult situation, at any rate to exercise his ingenuity and try to furbish up some sort of argument in favour of this Clause?

Major HAYWARD: I should have thought, for the credit of the Government themselves, they would not have allowed the Clause to pass without giving some reason other than they have. It is admitted that a Second Chamber is required, and the reasons given by the Lord Privy Seal for not devising a scheme in the Clause was that they could not think of one which they could possibly submit to the House of Commons. That is a very curious reason. It is as if an engineer had devised an engine which required a safety valve, and, not being able to devise one, sent it out without a safety valve, which is the position presented in the House of Commons to-day.

Mr. BETTERTON: There are, no doubt, other Members like myself who find it difficult, if not impossible, to decide. I have, heard speech after speech on this side with an open mind, and am undecided which way to vote. I should like to have heard some reply to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Duncairn (Sir E. Carson). I would ask the Government at least to give us some sort of guidance.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The earnest and absolutely innocent pleading of my hon. Friend who spoke last really did bring me to my feet. I do not think he has been here all the afternoon. I am not quite sure I saw his place occupied when I myself spoke upon this Amendment, and, much more important, when my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal replied to the arguments which have been put so ably before the Committee by so many speakers this afternoon. Really the arguments which have been put forward have been very few, but they have been repeated, as is very often the case in debate in Committee, and far be it from me to complain of that course of action. But, in fact, those arguments have been replied to by the Lord Privy Seal, and it is quite impossible for Members of the Government continually to get up and repeat the same replies to the same arguments. I only rose to tell my hon. Friend that if he did not hear the replies, he will find them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Brigadier - General COCKERILL: Before the Committee goes to a Division, if it does go, might I ask whether, in point of fact, there is any reason why the scheme laid down in the Clause should be identical in the North and South of Ireland? The Clause says that "the scheme shall specify the titles of the respective Houses, which scans to imply that the title, and even the scheme, may be different.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: That is quite right. The schemes may be quite different. There, may be one class of Second Chamber for the North and another for the South, the constituencies may be different, and the system of election or nomination may be different. All that has got to be identical is the Act of Parliament accepting a bargain made between North and South.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided; Ayes, 175; Noes, 31.

Division No. 354.]
AYES.
[7.0 p.m.


Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Brassey, Major H. L. C.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart. (Gr'nw'h)
Breese, Major Charles E.


Atkey, A. R.
Bennett, Thomas Jewell
Bridgeman, William Clive


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish
Briggs, Harold


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Blair, Reginald
Broad, Thomas Tucker


Balfour, Sir R. (Glasgow, Partick)
Borwick, Major G. O.
Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.


Barnett, Major R. W.
Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith
Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.


Barnston, Major Harry
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James


Burdon, Colonel Rowland
Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)
Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)
Remer, J. R.


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Hopkins, John W. W.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Carew, Charles Robert S.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Carr, W. Theodore
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Rodger, A. K.


Casey, T. W.
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Cautley, Henry S.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)
Jesson, C.
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A.(Birm., W.)
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Coates, Major Sir Edward F.
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Coats, Sir Stuart
Joynson-Hicks, Sir William
Seddon, J. A.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Simm, M. T.


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Knights, Capt. H. N. (C'berwell, N.)
Steel, Major S. Strang


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Stewart, Gershom


Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid)
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Daiziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)
Lloyd-Greame, Major Sir P.
Sturrock, J. Leng


Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)
Lorden, John William
Sugden, W. H.


Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Sutherland, Sir William


Doyle, N. Grattan
M'Donald, Dr. Bouverle F. P.
Sykes, Colonel Sir A. J. (Knutsford)


Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)


Edge, Captain William
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)


Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)
Marks, Sir George Croydon
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Mildmay, Colonel Rt. Hon. F. B.
Thomas-Stanford, Charles


Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M.
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Fell, Sir Arthur
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash
Tickler, Thomas George


FitzRoy, Captain Hon. E. A.
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Tryon, Major George Clement


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Waddington, R.


Forestier-Walker, L.
Murray, Major William (Dumfries)
Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.


Forrest, Walter
Neal, Arthur
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke upon Trent)


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Warren, Lieut.-Col. Sir Alfred H.


Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C.
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Gilbert, James Daniel
Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A.
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)


Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, w.)
Pearce, Sir William
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)


Greig, Colonel James William
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.
Wood, Major S. Hill (High Peak)


Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Woolcock, William James U.


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Pratt, John William
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Prescott, Major W. H.
Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)


Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Pulley, Charles Thornton
Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)


Hinds, John
Purchase, H. G.
Younger, Sir George


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Raper, A. Baldwin



Hood, Joseph
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Lord E. Talbot and Captain Guest.


NOES.


Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry
Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l,W.D'by)
Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Hayward, Major Evan
Pennefather, De Fonblanque


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)
Raffan, Peter Wilson


Betterton, Henry B.
Hoare, Lieut-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Hogge, James Myles
Wilson, Capt. A. S. (Holderness)


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Holmes, J. Stanley
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.



Galbraith, Samuel
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Glanville, Harold James
Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Lieut.-Colonel Guinness and Major


Gretton, Colonel John
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Hills.


Gwynne, Rupert S.
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

Clause read a Second time.

Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move at the end of the Clause to add the words
Provided always that if no scheme is framed within a year of setting up of the Parliaments, two Second Chambers shall be set up composed of forty Members nominated by the Lord Lieutenant.
This Amendment would get over the difficulty in providing proper protection for the loyalist minority in Southern Ireland. I do not say that the scheme in my
Amendment is absolutely perfect. Far from it, but it does provide a protection which I think is absolutely necessary if we are to see anything like protection of life and property in Ireland, especially in the Southern part. I think it is difficult for the Government to reject it. It is to a great extent taken from the Act of 1914. The Act of 1914, Section 8, provides:
The Irish Senate shall consist of forty Senators nominated as respects the first Senators by the Lord Lieutenant, subject to
any instructions given by His Majesty in respect of the nomination, and afterwards elected by the four provinces of Ireland as separate constituencies in the number stated in the third part of the First Schedule to this Act.
Hon. Members will see I have taken the first part of the Section, which indicates that an Irish Senate shall consist of 40 Members nominated by the Lord Lieutenant. As I understand, under the Home Rule Act of 1914 the nominated Senate would have been in existence for five years, and then after that their seats shall be filled by a new election. It would be quite possible to amend my Amendment by saying that the two new Senates to be set up in the South and North shall be nominated only for a stated period. It may be that it would be advisable to put in some saving Clause that in certain circumstances the Senate should exist for a certain number of years. I shall be quite willing to accept that. The object of some such Amendment as mine is to bridge over the difficulty which everybody must recognise will be in the next four or five years. Therefore I would suggest that the Government accept this Amendment, and, if necessary, put in words limiting it for a period. I do earnestly trust they will show their desire to safeguard the lives and property of people in various parts of Ireland who have been and are loyal to the Constitution, and which I believe is desired by nearly the whole of the House.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Though I cordially welcome the fruitful suggestion of the right hon. Baronet, I do not feel that it will be a practicable scheme if it imposes the same number in the South of Ireland and also in the North of Ireland. It will be remembered that in the Convention scheme there was to be a Senate of 64 and a popular Chamber of 61. That means the Senate was to be about three to eight of the popular Chamber. I think the right hon. Baronet's Amendment, would be more satisfactory if he would recast the figures, and take, say, three-eighths of 128 for the Southern Senate and three-eighths of the 52 for the Northern Senate. If he would re-east the Amendment in that form, and accept it, I suggest that we should take the Debate on that.

Amendment negatived.

Proposed Clause added to the Bill.

Orders of the Day — SIXTH SCHEDULE.

PROVISION AS TO COMPENSATION OF MEMBERS OF THE ROYAL, IRISH CONSTABULARY AND DUBLIN METROPOLITAN POLICE.

(2) (d) The retiring officer or constable must show to the satisfaction of the Lord Lieutenant that he is not incapacitated for the performance of his duties by mental or bodily infirmity and will not be entitled to retire on the maximum pension for length of service under the enactments aforesaid before the expiration of two years from the date of transfer.

5. In the event of an officer or constable dying after an annual allowance has been awarded to him under this Schedule, the Lord Lieutenant may, if he thinks fit, grant an annuity to the widow and children of the constable in like manner as if the allowance were a pension granted to the constable on retirement.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I beg to move, at the end of paragraph (2, d), to insert a new paragraph—
3. In the exercise of his powers under this Schedule the Lord Lieutenant shall act in accordance with instructions from His Majesty.
The object of this Amendment is to make it quite clear that the Lord Lieutenant is to act on the instructions of the United Kingdom Government in exercising the powers under the Sixth Schedule. The Sixth Schedule relates to the compensation of members of the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police. This Amendment makes it quite clear that he is not acting on behalf of either of the subsidiary Parliaments, but is acting on behalf of the United Kingdom Government.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I beg to move, in paragraph 5, to leave out the words "an annuity" and to insert instead thereof the words "a pension or gratuities."
This is the first of what are practically drafting Amendments. Under the existing law a pension may be granted to the widow of a pensioned constable or gratuities may be granted to the widow or children of a pensioned constable in certain circumstances. The first Amendment corrects the phraseology of the rule by substituting the words "a pension or gratuities or annuity."

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In paragraph 5, after the word "the" ["children of the constable"], insert the words "officer or"; after the word "the" ["granted to the constable"] insert the words "officer or."

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Bill (as amended on Re-committal) reported.

Bill, as amended (in Committee, and on Re-committal), considered.

The following New Clause stood on the Order Paper in the name of Sir L. Worthington-Evans:

NEW CLAUSE.—(Taking of oath of alle,lb/> giance by candidates at elections.)

(1) A candidate at an election of Members for the Parliament of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland shall, during the time during which nominations may be received,
take and prescribe before the returning officer the oath of allegiance, and if he fails to do so he shall be deemed to be withdrawn within the meaning of the provisions of The Ballot Act, 1872.
(2) It shall be the duty of the returning officer, and he is hereby empowered, to administer such oath.
(3) The returning officer shall send to the officer to whom returns to writs are sent with each return the forms of oath subscribed by the persons to whom the return relates, and any return to a writ not accompanied by those forms shall be invalid. The returning officer shall also forward to the same officer, with the packets of ballot papers and other documents which he is required so to forward, the forms of oaths subscribed by candidates not included in the returns to the writs.
(4) If a returning officer fails to comply with any of the provisions of this Section he shall forfeit the sum of three hundred pounds, recoverable at the instance of any person aggrieved or of His Majesty before a judge of the High Court sitting without a jury, and also forfeit his right to receive any sum in payment of his charges at the election.
(5) A form of oath subscribed under this Section shall be deemed to be a public document within the meaning of The Forgery Act. 1913.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I do not propose to move this Clause.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Provisions applicable in case of either House of Commons not being properly constituted.)

(1) If the Lord Lieutenant certifies that the number of Members of the House of Commons of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland validly returned at the first election of Members of the Parliament of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland is less than half
944
the total number of Members of that House, or that the number of Members of the House of Commons of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland who have taken the oath as such Members within fourteen days from the date on which the Parliament of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland is first summoned to meet is less than one-half of the total number of Members of that House, His Majesty in Council may, by Order, provide—

(a) for the dissolution of the Parliament of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland, as the case may be, and for postponing the issue of a Proclamation for summoning a new Parliament for such time as may be specified in the Order;
(b) for the exercise in the meantime of the powers of the government of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland, as the case may be, by the Lord Lieutenant with the assistance of a committee consisting of such persons (who shall be members of the Privy Council of Ireland) as His Majesty may appoint for the purpose, and of the powers of the Parliament of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland, as the case may be, by a legislative assembly consisting of the members of the said committee, together with such other persons as His Majesty may appoint for the purpose;

and the Order may make such modifications in this Act in its application to the part of Ireland affected as may appear to His Majesty to be necessary for giving effect to the Order and may contain such other consequential, incidental, and supplementary provisions as may appear necessary for the purposes of the Order, and any such Order shall have effect as if enacted in this Act but may be varied by any subsequent Order in Council.
(2) The person holding office in the House of Commons of Southern Ireland and of Northern Ireland corresponding to the office of Speaker of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom shall, at the expiration of the said period of fourteen days from the date on which the Parliament of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland, as the case may be, is first summoned to meet, send to the Lord Lieutenant a list containing the names of the Members of the House who have taken the oath as such Members, and for the purpose of this Section a Member shall be deemed not to have taken the oath unless his name is included in a list so sent.
(3) Where at the expiration of the period mentioned in any such Order in Council a Proclamation is issued summoning a new Parliament to meet this Section shall apply in like manner as it applies in the case of the first election and first summoning of Parliament. [Sir L. Worthington-Evans.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The House will no doubt desire to know why I have not moved the first of these two Clauses standing in my name. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] The object of the two Clauses is exactly the same, and that is, to prevent a farce being made of either the Northern or the Southern Parliament if the Members, after being elected, do not take their seats. There are Members elected to this House of Commons who are generally known as Sinn Fein Members who have not come to this House and have not taken the oath. They are filling the seats in the sense that they prevent anyone else representing the constituencies; in fact, they are making a farce of the whole procedure of Parliamentary representation by not taking the oath or coming to this House. The main object of this Clause is at the earliest possible moment to prevent anyone elected, either to the Northern or the Southern Houses in Ireland, standing in the way of another person representing the constituency. The provisions in the second Clause, in the judgment of the Government, are sufficient to carry out the object that we have in view.
May I call the attention of the House to what are the provisions? The Clause provides that where the Lord Lieutenant certifies that the number of Members of either of the Irish Houses of Commons at the first election is less than half the total number of Members of the particular House, or that the number of Members who have taken the oath as such Members within 14 days from the date on which the Parliament was first summoned to meet is less than one-half of the total, certain things may happen. Let us see what this really means? If the Members of either of the two Irish Houses are elected with a determination not to act as representatives of their constituencies, and intend to fill the position and not properly to occupy it as representatives, then the Lord Lieutenant may take certain action. If we had had the power now in this House given in this new Clause, we could have declared vacant the seats of those Members who have not taken the oath or fulfilled their duties as representing constituencies in Ireland. Another election would have taken place.

Mr. SEXTON: With the same result.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: That may be, but, after all, the King's Government must be carried on; and if Members
who are returned to the House deliberately refrain from attending the place or qualifying themselves by taking the oath, provision has to be made that will enable the work of government to be carried on. There are two things to be done. The seats of those who have been elected and have not taken the oath within fourteen days from the date of the summoning of Parliament may be declared vacant, or an Order may be made providing for the dissolution of the Parliament, or for postponing the issue of the Proclamation for summoning the Parliament for such time as may be specified in the Order. That is to say, the new Parliament may not be summoned, and in the meantime Paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1) takes effect, for the exercise in the meantime of the powers of government by the Lord Lieutenant with the assistance of a Committee—practically a Cabinet—and by a legislative assembly consisting of the members of the said Committee together with such other persons nominated, as His Majesty may appoint for the purpose.
There seems to have been some misunderstanding in the House of what this Clause really means, because once or twice earlier to-day hon. Members seem to have thought that there might be a lapse altogether of Parliamentary power. There cannot be a lapse of Parliamentary power, that being provided for by this Clause. I revert to my statement of the main object of this Clause, that we do not wish to see happen in the Irish Parliaments what has happened in this Parliament, namely, that members shall be elected and refuse to do their duty as Members of Parliament. In the case of the Sinn Fein Members of this House our work is not paralysed. We have enough Members to go on with, but if what has happened here happened in either the North or the South of Ireland it might paralyse the work of those Parliaments altogether. It is to prevent this paralysis that I beg to move the Second Reading of this new Clause.

Mr. ASQUITH: I suppose hon. Members have seen on the Notice Paper these two Clauses tacked together and, interdependent. They have a curious Parliamentary history. Neither of them appeared in the Bill as originally introduced, and although, I believe, they did make a fitful and momentary appearance, neither were pressed in Committee. The
House, practically for the first time, on the Report stage finds them here. We find them here—and one has already gone. I confess I am not surprised at its tardy appearance or at its prompt and, indeed, sudden disappearance. I presume I shall not be in order on this second Clause in discussing the merits of its extinct twin-brother. That is a pity! The task is one I should have enjoyed very much. But, there it is; we are left with this barren, musty remainder biscuit in the shape of the second Clause. I really attach very little importance to this Clause. The House, I trust, will sympathise with me in the state of rhetorical poverty to which I am temporarily reduced. In regard to this second Clause, there are several things to be said. It illustrates very forcibly the farcical character of this Southern Parliament. There is no use disguising the fact that this Clause is directed, not against the Northern Parliament at all, for the contingency anticipated is not likely, or least likely, to arise there. It is directed against the Southern Parliament alone.
Let the House seriously consider what the effect of this Clause is if it is kept in the Bill. The Southern Parliament, which means by far the greater part, both in area and population, of Ireland, if the contingency here anticipated arises —and it is absolutely certain it will—will be deprived altogether of any sort of Parliamentary representation. It will have no representation in this so-called Parliament because the effect of this Clause will be that that Parliament, not being assembled in the necessary number, is dissolved by proclamation, and its existence is indefinitely suspended by the act of prerogative. What do you put in its place? A body which has not any credentials or the authority of an elected body—a purely nominated body by the Lord Lieutenant or by the Executive Commitee so far as Southern Ireland is concerned which, as I say, means three-quarters of Ireland—a vast portion of Ireland both in area and population—it is reduced to the status of one of the most backward of our Crown Colonies. That is the effect of this proposal. Let us face it! If this Clause is passed it is certain that under this Bill Southern Ireland will be deprived indefinitely of her Parliament, and with it the prospect
of some workable solution, if not a final solution of the Irish problem. I would ask hon. Members to remember that if this Clause be passed that the greater part of Ireland will be deprived indefinitely by an act of the Executive of all form of electoral or representative government.

Mr. RONALD McNEILL: It is not often I have the pleasure of agreeing on any matter connected with Ireland with the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, but I confess that on this point I am in agreement with him. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Asquith) said that this new Clause showed the farcical character of the Parliament to be set up in Southern Ireland, but he has not told us what he would have done, or how he would avoid this farcical proposal. There is only one way. I do not know how far the right hon. Gentleman has gone on the road to an independent Ireland, but he must realise that any proposal which he could make for setting up a Parliament in the South of Ireland, other than an independent republic, would be open to exactly the same objection which he has put forward against this Clause The whole thing of giving a Parliament to the South of Ireland is farcical, and may I say that nobody has done more to make it farcical than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley and his policy, and there is no one less qualified to come down here and lecture the present Government for a state of affairs which he himself has brought about.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I always welcome the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley's intervention in Irish Debates, and I only wish that his party had attended in larger numbers, because they might have saved the House from drifting into what I think will be a crowning blunder in Irish policy. The speech of the Minister without Portfolio is a wonderful commentary on the absurdity of the position, for he is a skilful Parliamentarian in the air of reality he adopts when he is advocating the most fantastic proposal. I think he would have made an admirable Peter Pan, but his fairyland happens in real life. Nevertheless, this proposal has in it an element of very great danger. The Government expect this Bill will pass and come into operation with the extreme party in Ireland just as hostile to
the Imperial connection as it is at the present time.
Apparently they expect to see these Sinn Fein Members of Parliament coming together in Dublin, meeting and refusing to take the oath. I feel that if that happens you will be in a very disastrous dilemma. If these Sinn Feiners are elected owing to your failure to meet the demands of reasonable Irishmen, and if you have 160 Sinn Fein Members meeting in Dublin declaring the independence of Ireland, you will be in a very great difficulty. Are you going to bring in a regiment of soldiers to turn them out, or trust to the safeguards you are enacting by this now Clause? The only remedy is to make the Bill acceptable to them. I know it is useless for my hon. Friends and myself to take up any further time this evening in urging Amendments to these proposals, and we do not propose to do so. If you take the Bill in its present form, which the Government know is only possible if they take this very extreme and dangerous method, you are only taking an unjustifiable risk which must aggravate Irish opinion at the best, and at the worst may land you into a terrible disaster.

Captain COOTE: This Clause anticipates a continuance of present conditions in Ireland. That means a continuance of reprisals, and the minorities in the South of Irleand will not get any real protection whatever by this provision. I, for my part, cannot support a Clause which pays no regard to the things which the Government have been insisting upon as being required, namely, the protection of minorities and the ending both of murders and reprisals. This Clause practically means that the Government will make no further effort to deal with the situation in Ireland by legislative means, but leave it to practical action, and everybody knows the form that practical action will take. I say that it is an intolerable position merely to sit down and say that murders and reprisals must go on until the first has beaten the last or the last has beaten the first. The position which this Clause contemplates, under which the Lord Lieutenant will govern the South of Ireland, appears to me to be most dangerous. We have in Ireland to-day the reserve troops from this country, and it is frightfully dangerous that those troops should be in Ireland. I agree that
it is not possible for any proposal, short of one for an Irish Republic, to work in the South of Ireland. I think we who are really anxious about the lives of the police and the soldiers have a right to ask the Government to take all the measures they can to protect the forces of the Crown. In my opinion, nothing will do that save a policy of concentration—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is dealing with a matter of administration now, and we are not considering that.

Captain COOTE: I submit that under this Bill what is contemplated is a continuance of present conditions. I only wish to indicate that it appears to me, and I hold it with great force, that if this Clause is allowed to pass there will be no prospect of any improvement in the position in Southern Ireland for many years to come, and the prospect which this Clause offers of the conditions that will prevail under it in Southern Ireland fills me with astonishment and horror. I do not think if this is the best the Government can do as regards the future in Southern Ireland, it is not very much use for us to continue taking part in this discussion.
I am reluctantly forced to that conclusion, because I am one of the very few who, when this Bill was first introduced, thought there was something in it, but I must confess, as events have proceeded, and after the many Debates which have taken place, I have been more and more forced to the conclusion that this Clause, which embodies the Government's deliberate policy with regard to the future, is merely a policy of "Wait and see." The Government refused to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Lieut.-Colonel Guinness) to deal with Ireland by legislative generosity, and now they propose a policy of waiting for the future, which holds out no prospect except a continuance of murders and reprisals. I cannot be a party to that policy, and if I can get anybody to resist this Clause I shall oppose it.

Lord HUGH CECIL: This proposal is the greatest legislative absurdity that has ever been suggested. We have been seriously asked to accept this Bill, which began as a measure for giving the Irish self-government. The Leader of the
House used the expression "self-government" in defending this Bill on its Second Reading, but if I had been able to be present I should have voted against the measure. By submitting this proposal the Government now recognise that it is an absurd measure. They anticipate that it is not going to work in the South of Ireland, and they are proposing to set up a machine which, so far from giving the Irish self-government, is going to reduce them to the level of subject dependency. What is the use of doing that? There is no pleasure in passing a Bill which pleases nobody and which, so far from furthering self-government, is not desired by anybody in Ireland, and it will throw back the whole cause of peace and prosperity in Ireland. According to the account given to us by Sinn Feiners, Nationalists, and Unionists, there are not two opinions about that. What is the use of setting up all this machinery merely to come to nothing in the end? Surely it would be much better to say that the Bill is to depend upon some form of acceptance by the Irish people. According to the scheme of the Bill Ireland is divided, and the success of the measure is dependent on some form of acceptance both by the North and by the South.
The idea of propounding the scheme and then setting up this ridiculous machinery is most grotesque. If you are going to set up a measure of self-government which will meet the views of the Irish people, let them be the arbiters of what is according to their own wishes. I quite recognise the immense difference between their wishes and the wishes of the people of Great Britain. Apparently they desire something which the people of Great Britain think is dangerous to their interests. If that is so, if that is the fundamental difficulty, then let us go on as we are. The present system of government has gone on for many years, and it can continue a few years longer. To exchange a system which has been tested and tried a system of government by a Parliament of the United Kingdom, for something which you anticipate that the Irish will dislike so heartily that you are obliged to set up this machinery, is not common sense. It is not within the wide boundaries of sanity? I ask the Government to recast this Bill and see if it is not possible to submit to the Irish
people something more likely to meet with their acceptance, and, in the event of their rejecting of it, to maintain the existing system of a united Parliament sitting here in the hope that later on some further proposals may be evolved which will be more satisfactory to them. Merely to do what we are doing now will only continue the present disorder. My hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Ronald McNeill) says the right hon. Member for Paisley is responsible for the present state of things. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman was responsible for starting this absurd goose-chase of. Home Rule, but he is not responsible for reducing Ireland to its present state of internecine war. That is due to the gross incompetence of the present Government. They have reduced Ireland to this state, and now, instead of saying frankly that in the condition in which she now is the representative institutions we intended for her are impossible, and will be impossible until peace is restored, therefore we must give up the attempt, they are actually proposing this astounding Clause. It is really like a person engaged in dealing with the rules of bridge who is called upon to alter them to provide for a contingency in which a player produces a revolver and holds up all the other players. One would naturally say that such conditions were inappropriate for playing bridge altogether. Equally the present condition of Ireland, with its state of murder and reprisals, is inappropriate for representative Government.

Mr. BONAR LAW: After the compliments which have been paid to the Government by my Noble Friend, I must say a few words. I am sure the Committee shares the disappointment felt by my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley at his inability to deliver the speech which has kept him about the House for so long a time. It is not only his loss, but I am sure it is a loss to the House. We can, however, only discuss the speech which he has delivered. It was very interesting. He used some striking metaphors. He told us these two Clauses were twins, and afterwards he described one of the twins as a musty remainder biscuit. I was a little more encouraged by what the right hon. Gentleman said about the position. He said it was a farce. I think it is much more—it is a tragedy. At all events this,
I think, will be admitted, that the Government have treated it as a tragedy, and have tried as well as they could to deal with the horrible situation which exists in Ireland. It is not an easy situation to deal with, and if you come to the question of a farce, the farce, in my judgment, is not in the proposals of the Government, or in the efforts we have made to carry them through, but it consists in this, that those who are opposed to the Government, and who had the ordinary constitutional powers in this House of improving our Bill by discussing it, have preferred to make their speeches outside. The speech of my hon. Friend behind me was an illustration of how difficult this problem is for anyone who does not think. He said that all that was wanted was to produce a Bill that Ireland will accept. How simple that is! We all want to do it, but again I must confess that we do not get much assistance from the views expressed by our critics. They tell us, "You must have something or other that Ireland will accept." They also suggest that they have something which Ireland will accept, but there is not the smallest evidence that the people of Ireland will accept more readily their proposal than the one we are making. It is no good talking as my Noble Friend did about self-determination. What is the good of talking about that? What is the good of telling us that the Irishmen should get what they wish?

Lord H. CECIL: I did not say that the Irish ought to get what they wish. I said that, if we are trying to give them what they wish it is no use offering them what we know quite well they do not wish.

Mr. BONAR LAW: Just so. We have 70 Members elected for Ireland by overwhelming majorities, and it has been admitted that if we, had another Election to-morrow precisely the same result would be secured. Every one of those 70 Members is pledged to an Irish Republic and nothing else. What, then, is the good of talking about this concession or that concession? These things are simply the opinion of one or other very optimistic persons; because something seems reasonable to them they think it will appear equally reasonable to other people, whereas these people will have nothing whatever to do with it. The real issue is this. If you are going to frame your Bill on the supposition that you are to give the majority of the people in
Southern Ireland what they want, then it is no good beating about the bush; you must allow them to judge for themselves. But that is not our proposal. We say we are prepared to give Ireland the largest measure of self-government which commends itself to the people of Great Britain as well as to the people of Ireland. I cannot help thinking my right hon. Friend is really following a will-of-the-wisp. It is necessary to choose between these two things. You have either to give as generously as you can the largest measure of self-government which the United Kingdom plus Ireland will accept, or you must say to Ireland, "You can have whatever you will." That is the unreality of the whole criticism directed against us. My Noble Friend said this was the biggest farce, the greatest absurdity ever known. He referred to the game of bridge and said if you had to deal with somebody with a revolver, would it not be rather absurd to alter the rules of the game in order to deal with that situation? That is perfectly true. If I were engaged in playing a game of bridge, and I thought that some of the others taking part in the same game were likely to use a revolver, I would make arrangements accordingly. As a matter of fact my Noble Friend must know that in the Far West of America in the old days people did not see the necessity of giving up card games because of this danger, but they made arrangements to meet the situation. That is the position here, and it is not just to say that, because we are putting in this proposal to deal with a situation which may arise, therefore the whole of our scheme is absurd.
8.0 P.M.
My Noble Friend's criticism really amounted to this, that it is no use attempting to frame self-government for Ireland in these days, and that therefore it would be better to drop our Bill altogether and go on as we are. That is his solution of the problem. It is not our solution. We have deliberately taken the view that it is possible in time to reconcile Ireland to a reasonable scheme. To use the words of my Noble Friend himself, all Irishmen are not outside the wide boundaries of sanity. They are capable of thinking, and in my view—and I say this deliberately—I am sorry to have to say it—nothing has done so much harm to the chances of a settlement of
the Irish question as the declarations which have been made by certain of our critics that the Government are willing to go much further and to deal with the people in a very much more generous way than is provided in the Home Rule Bill. Those who are making those criticisms are doing their utmost to make it impossible to secure a reasonable settlement of the Irish question. That is my view. What is the alternative to some such state of things as we propose? My Noble Friend has referred to the speech which I delivered on the introduction of the Bill, in which I said it was a measure to give self-government to Ireland. So it was, but I said also at that time that obviously if, after the Bill passed, existing conditions continued and the elected representatives of the people refused to work it, then it would be necessary to devise a means of dealing with the situation. The Government, in this Clause, are carrying out the very definite promise I made on the Second Reading of the Bill. It would be germane if the critics suggested some better method of dealing with the situation is possible. We simply realise the situation and say we are prepared to deal with it. We are always bring told to introduce this, that, or the other, but our critics are always running away from their own proposals. They are always telling us we are in the wrong. I suggest they will find that they are the mistaken ones. The Sinn Feiners—those who are engaged in murder—are a very small proportion of the people of Ireland. Once the people in Ireland realise that we are in earnest, that we are not going to be driven to new schemes because of murder, they will realise also that we are giving them a very generous measure of self-government. It will be there for them to accept. My belief is that the strongest ground for suspicion, among people who are more or less moderate in Ireland, as to the intention of this or any other British Government, is that, while we have often talked about it, we have never done it. In my honest belief, the moment that this Bill is on the Statute-Book and we are prepared to carry it through, there will be a new condition in Ireland. At all events, it is better than the hopeless attitude taken up by my Noble Friend. It does give some hope of a final settlement in Ireland.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I have listened to almost the whole of this Debate, and many times, as the discussion went on, and speeches were made which were not answered from the Government Bench, I have wondered whether the time was being wasted. After the discussion that has taken place upon what is left of the last page of the Report stage of this Bill, I have come to the conclusion that the time of the House has not been altogether wasted, because, at any rate, it is some satisfaction to know—as I think can be accurately deduced from the conclusion of the Debate on the Report stage of this Bill—that we can come to one practically certain conclusion, and that is that the Bill is dead.

Mr. JELLETT: I rise merely for the purpose of making a suggestion which, to some extent, has been anticipated by the Noble Lord (Lord H. Cecil). As I understand the matter, in the event of the Parliament not functioning in Southern Ireland, we are to be treated to government by a Committee of the Privy Council. That Committee, in the first place, is to conduct the executive part of the government, and, in the second place, they are to have—certainly with added members nominated by the Lord Lieutenant—legislative powers. They are not responsible to this House. They can pass measures which, apparently, will never be submitted to the House of Lords I can assure the right hon. Gentleman, and I can assure the House, that there is no class of government which will be more repugnant to every shade of opinion than Government by a Star Chamber of that kind. What is the alternative? The alternative, to my mind at any rate, seems to be simple. We are governed at the present time under a Constitution; we have Parliamentary representation in this House. If this Bill is to do anything at all, presumably it must satisfy somebody. If it satisfies nobody it will settle nothing. The Bill sets up two areas in Ireland— the Northern and the Southern areas. My humble suggestion to the Government is that each area be allowed, independently of the other, to have the opportunity of saying within a specified time whether or not it accepts the provisions of this Bill—always leaving out of that question the last Clause of all, which is the only Clause that receives almost universal approbation, namely, the Clause repealing the Act of 1914. Subject to that
limitation, the two areas, each independently of the other, would, through their Parliamentary representatives, have the opportunity of saying within a specified time whether they accepted the other provisions of the Bill or not. If they did not, my suggestion is that the status quo should remain, and that we should be, at any rate, governed under a constitutional form of government, with Parliamentary representation in this House, and should not be handed over to the government of a nominated Committee which would not command popular support, because they would represent nobody except themselves. I cannot think that, in this democratic age this House will agree that any portion of the United Kingdom shall be governed on a system of that kind. Apparently, the powers of the Committee are to continue for a period to be specified in the Order in Council. When that time has expired, you are to have another try, and see whether your Parliament will function. If it will not—and, of course, it will not—you are to go back to your Committee again. If they take the Bill, well and good, but if they do not, leave us where we are—leave us under constitutional government. Whatever you do, do not put us under the government of a nominated Committee responsible to nobody and representing nobody.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. McNeill) twitted the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley with being driven from position to position. Does that mean that hon. Members opposite, including the Leader of his party, have not moved one inch from the position they took up before the War? If not, why do they twit us with moving from position to position? Or is the whole of this Bill an elaborate smoke-cloud, hiding the fact that the extreme portion of Ulster opinion has won right along the line, and that the only operative Clause in the Bill is the Clause repealing the Act of 1914? I say with great respect to the hon. Member for Canterbury that that is what I thought very strongly was his subconscious meaning. I have listened with the greatest disappointment to the speech of the Lord Privy Seal. Do the Government ever really study human nature? I do not think they do. I do not think there is one Member of the Cabinet who really thinks about it and its effect, and that is why we have had such an appalling
mess of things in general ever since the Armistice. Do they not realise that, if you put a Clause like this into the Bill, it will reinforce Sinn Fein a hundred times over? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the moment you threaten them with a Crown Colony Government if they do not take the oath and be good boys and behave themselves in Southern Ireland, human nature—and especially, if I may say so, Irish human nature, will at once take that very course, that you will get your irregular rebel Dail Eireann sitting just the same, and that the position of Sinn Fein will be enormously strengthened? Their friends abroad can always say to them now: "At any rate you can always go to the English House of Commons; why do you not do that?" But, under this Clause, these elected members will be able to say: "Here we are, duly elected by the people, as legally as any other Parliament, but we are refused the rights of an elected assembly, and hunted, chased and harried wherever we try and meet and try to govern." I think the Government is suffering from lack of imagination and from a total failure to try and understand the other fellow's point of view in Ireland. Sinn Fein has become stronger and stronger under their rule, and this sort of thing will make it even stronger still. I believe hon. Members opposite will bear me out in saying that many persons in the South and West of Ireland who used to be reckoned as Unionists are going over in despair to Sinn Fein. This sort of treatment, as we have heard from the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Jellett), who, I believe, speaks for a large body of opinion in Southern Ireland, will speed up that process. Why cannot we even allow this elected Parliament in the South and West of Ireland to meet and function? Look at history in other respects. I hesitate to point to the example of the Hungarian Parliament—the Magyar Parliament—but before they got Home Rule in Hungary there was a very strong party which stood for the complete independence of Hungary. They were allowed to function. They abused the Austrian Crown, about which in early years they had the bitterest things to say; they were always going to separate, and so forth, but they never came to it. They were allowed to function, and became busy with the administration of Hungary, and as a result they became the most nationalist and ultra-patriotic part of
Austria. That is one example of many that could easily be turned to in history. The Lord Privy Seal has prophesied what is going to happen. He seems to imagine that he is going to beat the Sinn Fein spirit. Sinn Fein is a new word, but the spirit is 700 years old. When most of the hon. and right hon. Members who support the Lord Privy Seal are in their graves, we, who are young enough, will have this problem yet to settle. We shall be faced with that same spirit under another name. We are going exactly the wrong way to beat it. The Lord Privy Seal, having helped to win the War, thinks he is going to beat Sinn Fein, but he will not; it will rise again. I hope he will not call me a statesman who is encouraging opposition to his plans in Ireland, but I am going to attempt a very humble prophecy. If you allow these people to meet, even if they do not take the oath of allegiance, even if they preach rank sedition in their Parliament—if you allow them to get busy trying to reconstruct the economic wealth of Ireland, to develop the national resources, and to keep law and order in their own country, as they did until you began to harry them, you will find that they will be busy and will function, and that in the end, probably, the danger will not be so great. We are faced here, not with the idea of surrendering to murder but with two opposite and opposing ideas. One is that you should allow people to work out their own destiny, in other words you should trust the people of whatever race, whether your own or the Irish. The other is that you should attempt to dominate them and, no doubt honestly, mould them into your way. That is the idea before the right hon. Gentleman, and that is the idea which is practised in Germany, and just as that was defeated before this will be defeated, and our way will win. The only thing I regret is the blood and agony we shall have to go through before the people of the country learn how they have been betrayed.

Sir E. CARSON: I do not intend to follow the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Lieut. -Commander Kenworthy) into that pleasant anticipation when, a few years hence he, as Prime Minister, will be trying to settle this question. If I have any anticipations at all, the only pleasant one is to think that I shall not be here. I should not have risen had
it not been for the speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir D. Maclean) who made a kind of demonstration which seemed to me to sound like "Who killed Cock Robin?" He semed to think that he had terminated the whole of this controversy, at all events to his entire satisfaction, and perhaps that of his Leader beside him, if he is his leader, when he said, "I draw one gratifying conclusion from all I have heard to-day." He sat down and said, "The Bill is dead." That was a very irresponsible way of dealing with this question. Let us assume that this mournful result has happened. What then? Has the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Asquith) thought that what remains then is the Act of 1914? He has opposed this, as has the right hon. Gentleman (Sir D. Maclean). They have called it a "farce," and they have called it "ludicrous." Will either of them dare to put in force the Act of 1914? Remember it took 30 years before it passed this House, and even then against the majority of this country; and what is the good of your holding out in a crisis like this these idle hopes to the people of Ireland that you are able within the next few months to settle the problem? It is the most dangerous business you were ever engaged in. If instead of doing that, you had said, "Let us give what after all was our own policy in the past, or something more than our own policy, a fair trial, and we will throw our whole weight into attempting that," you would have done a far greater service in commencing to settle something in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman, when he says the Bill is dead, if he be right, is leaving the question in a more hopeless position than it ever was in before. What is he going to do with the Act of 1914? Is he going to set it up? Who will accept it? Will Sinn Fein accept it? They laugh at it. Will the North of Ireland accept it? Never. And where do you commence then in your attempt under existing circumstances to settle the Irish question?
I merely rose to make a protest against its being supposed that the Leader of an Opposition discharges his duty by simply proclaiming that he and those who act with him have killed one measure. In a state such as we are in at present, you have not a solitary thing to put in its place, not even an idea or a sug-
gestion, for you have not made one during the whole of these discussions. I do not like this Clause which we are discussing, but anyone who knows the present condition of Ireland, whatever Bill you bring in, must know that if the Sinn Feiners, who are in the majority, refuse to function the scheme that you set up, you cannot leave the King's Government without something to put in its place, and that is all this Clause tries to do.
You need never have a Crown Colony if they will accept this, which is, I believe, the very widest effort at creating self-government in Ireland that has ever been contemplated by any previous statesman in this country. It would be very well worth while His Majesty's Government considering what was said by my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Jellett).
I think it is a great pity that you have not put your scheme forward as the most that this country is prepared to give, and leave it then to the people of the South and the people of the North to say whether they will have it or not, and if they refuse it leave them under the same government that they have at present. I think that would be far better, and even now at this late hour it would be far better that you should throw upon them the onus of either taking or rejecting the scheme than saying, "If you do not do so, we will turn you into a Crown Colony." If they do not want the widest scheme of self-government that this country is prepared to give, why should not the Union hold the field? I commend that to my right hon. Friend as well worthy of the consideration of the Government. But let us not go away from this discussion imagining that because you pass a Clause of this kind, or throw out this Bill, throw Ireland into utter chaos, and leave at the same time the Act of 1914 upon the Statute Book—which not even its own authors will look at or claim as being their own—you would settle anything in this question. I hope this Bill does become law. The one thing we may expect is that we may be allowed a fair chance in Ireland, without its again being reduced, as right hon. Gentlemen opposite are attempting to reduce it, into a mere party political question, which for years and years will go on and be discussed without any attempt at a settlement being commenced in Ireland.

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: I read this Clause with some apprehension. I fully realise the difficulty the Government had to meet in introducing this Bill, and I am very glad to find them pressing it now on the attention of the House instead of leaving it, as I think they did to some extent last Session, without the close attention it deserves. I do not like this, and I particularly do not like the very vague way in which this assembly—because it is called an assembly—is defined. What it calls a legislative assembly has to be brought into being, unfortunately, under the conditions that we know are most likely to arise, and therefore it is a body which will have very considerable powers in the future, and whose constitution is a matter of great importance. It is spoken of as a legislative assembly, but we are not told what its numbers are to, be. It is to be partly recruited from the Council of Ireland and partly by such persons as His Majesty may appoint. It may be 10 or it may be 100. It is what may be called a Star Chamber. At any rate, it is an assembly with considerable powers, and this House ought to have some sort of idea what its numbers are to be and some particulars as to its constitution. I should have preferred a scheme such as has been suggested, and if the Parliament of Southern Ireland, when created, will not fulfil the purpose for which it has been elected, then until that Parliament can be dissolved, and until the new one can take its place, I cannot see why the powers of legislation should not remain where they are now, in this House. I agree that it would be an invidious task to govern the South of Ireland from here while the North of Ireland may have its own Parliament, or vice versa, but it would be an incentive to those who have refused to take their seats to take the Government into their own hands.
I should have thought the Council which is contemplated to be brought into being by this Act might possibly be utilised in an emergency of this kind. Supposing the Northern Parliament is sitting and the Members of the Southern Parliament refuse to take their seats, the Council could be used for the purpose of carrying on non-controversial government in Ireland. Would it not, in those circumstances, be possible to have 20 Members nominated by the Northern Parliament, and for the Government to choose from
among those elected to the Southern Parliament who have taken their seats 20 persons to sit on the Council, and to leave to them some powers for carrying on the government of the country? I agree that we cannot leave to the Council the power to make Acts of Parliament for the South of Ireland, because the South of Ireland would object, to those laws as being made by 20 Members of the Northern Parliament. That would be the very last thing they could be expected to accept. The Council could deal with matters affecting the railway system, transport, or questions of that kind. I rose to try to get information from the Government as to what this body is to be, because I have a dread, which is shared by other hon. Members, that this body will have a great deal of work, at any rate, in the early days of the new Parliament. We all want the Council to become a sort of nucleus from which Parliamentary union is to spring, and I am very much afraid of anything which may create irritation in Ireland and may lead precisely to the kind of criticism which we have heard in this House. It will be called the Star Chamber, repressive government, the tyranny of the ages People will run riot in their denunciation of government by an institution such as this. If it could be left in this House, well and good; but if you could substitute another form of elective assembly it would be still better. Do not leave the government of the Southern part of Ireland, the most disturbed and the least loyal part, to a nominated Chamber.

Captain LOSEBY: I do not rise to offer any kind of suggestion to the Government, but to give my reasons for supporting this Clause. I have really intervened for one particular purpose. There is a fashion in these Debates for the critics of the Government to get up one after the other, sometimes to the number of seven or eight, and then a member of the Government will get up to reply. It seems to me that the Government encourage that policy, and I cannot help thinking that they make a great mistake in doing so. I recognise that I have only succeeded in taking part in the Debate by the fact that I was the last to get up. This method of conducting the Debate gives the impression that the supporters of the Government are so many mummies, prepared to do what we
are told at the crack of the whip, and that, for fear of the Government support being withdrawn from us in our constituencies, we follow the Government. We who are supporters of the Government are entitled to say why, in certain circumstances, we support the Government, and we are as entitled to give our reasons for so doing and to be called upon in debate as are members of the Opposition from various sources. The Noble Lord the Member for Oxford (Lord Hugh Cecil) has been speaking in a most amusing manner as to whether this Government or the right hon. Gentleman for Paisley can be held responsible for the campaign of murder that is going on in Ireland. We cannot insist too frequently that it is neither the predecessors of this Government nor this Government who are responsible for this campaign of murder. It is the people of Ireland alone. The Government put up the machinery, and I should think they were making the greatest possible blunder if, because Ireland, for the time being is anxious to cut off her nose to spite her fact, they should pull down that machinery.

Mr. CAREW: I entirely agree with this Clause. I look at it entirely from a common-sense point of view, and that is that the first thing the Government have to do is to restore, as far as they can, law and order in the South of Ireland. Until that is done there is no chance of the people having any voice which is not intimidated by Sinn Feiners in that part of the country. Therefore, I think the Government are absolutely right in bringing forward this alternative of a nominated Committee for the South of Ireland. It could not be worse under a nominated Committee than Ireland is at the present time; but in my opinion it would be very much better. All the time that the nominated Committee is in office the Government will, I hope, be restoring law end order in Ireland, as we are told they are doing at the present time. It was stated from the Front Opposition Bench that the Government were responsible for the present position of Ireland. I was in the House in 1916, and the present condition of Ireland arose from the rebellion at Easter, 1916. What led up to that rebellion was the party politics of the Liberal party prior to the Coalition Government. Give the devil his due; it is not the present Government that is
responsible for the present condition of Ireland, but the Liberal Government before the War.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Alteration of scale of election expenses.)

The provisions of the Fourth Schedule to The Representation of the People Act, 1918, in their application to elections of Members to serve in the Parliament of the United Kingdom or the Parliament of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland for any of the constituencies named in Part I. or Part II, of the Second Schedule to this Act, shall have effect with the substitution of two pence for seven pence and for five pence.—[Mr. Fisher.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 137; Noes, 11.

Division No. 355.]
AYES.
[8.40 P.M.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Glyn, Major Ralph
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.
Goff, Sir R. Park
O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A,
Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.


Allen, Lieut. Colonel William James
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry


Archdale, Edward Mervyn
Greer, Harry
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike


Atkey, A. R.
Hall, Rr-Admi Sir W. (Liv'p'l,W.D'by)
Pennefather, De Fonblanque


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)
Perkins, Walter Frank


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Barnett, Major R. W.
Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Pratt, John William


Barnston, Major Harry
Hinds, John
Prescott, Major W. H.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Purchase, H. G.


Betterton, Henry B,
Hood, Joseph
Randies, Sir John S.


Bigland, Alfred
Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)
Raper, A. Baldwin


Borwick, Major G. O.
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)
Reid, D. D.


Breese, Major Charles E.
Hopkins, John W. W
Remer, J. R.


Bridgeman, William Clive
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Briggs, Harold
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Jesson, C.
Seddon, J. A.


Brown, T. W. (Down, North)
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Johnson, Sir Stanley
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Stewart, Gershom


Burn, T. H. (Belfast, St. Anne's)
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Carew, Charles Robert S.
Jones, J. T,(Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Sugden, W. H.


Carr, W. Theodore
Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George
Sykes, Colonel Sir A. J. (Knutsford)


Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.
Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr
Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)


Casey, T. W.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Chamberlain, N (Birm., Ladywood)
Knights, Capt. H. N. (C'berwell, N.)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Lloyd-Greame, Major Sir P.
Waddington, R.


Coote, William (Tyrone, South)
Lonsdale, James Rolston
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Warren, Lieut.-Col. Sir Alfred H.


Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid)
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Lynn, R. J.
Whitla, Sir William


Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)
M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)
McNeill Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Doyle. N. Grattan
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Mitchell, William Lane
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
Moles, Thomas
Woolcock, William James U.


Fell, Sir Arthur
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Young, Lieut.-Com. E.H. (Norwich)


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash



Forestier-Walker, L.
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Murray, Major William (Dumfries)
Lord E. Talbot and Captain Guest.


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)





NOES.


Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Kenyon, Barnet



Galbraith, Samuel
Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D.(Midlothian)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hayward, Major Evan
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Mr. Hogge and Mr. Raffan.


Johnstone, Joseph
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

Mr. FISHER: I beg to move "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Amendment is introduced as a corollary to the system of proportional representation which the Bill proposes to set up in Ireland. Under a system of proportional representation constituencies are enlarged and the number of electors is increased considerably. The expenses of election will, as a consequence, be greatly increased also, in fact, the cost of a candidature will be almost prohibitive under the tariff set up by the Representation of the People Act of 1918 and the Corrupt and Illegal Practices
(Prevention) Act of 1883. For instance, in County Down it is calculated that the cost of a candidature for each Member will be £2,397, and in rural Fermanagh £2,730, whereas, if this Amendment is adopted, these sums will be reduced to something like £700 and £800 respectively.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Motion made, and Question, "That the further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. Fisher.]

Bill, as amended (in Committee and on Re-committal), to be further considered upon Wednesday.

Bill, as amended, on Re-committal, to be printed.[Bill 229.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. HOGGE: May I ask what other business will be taken to-morrow if the Ministry of Health (Miscellaneous Powers) Bill get through before 11 o'clock?

Lord EDMUND TALBOT (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): The Ministry of Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill will be the first Order. The second Order will be the Financial Resolution on the Ministry of Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. The third and fourth Orders will be the Public Health (Tuberculosis) Bill, and the Gold and Silver (Export, Control,
etc.) Bill, Second Reading. That will carry us far enough.

NATIONAL EXPENDITURE (SELECT COMMITTEE).

Ordered, that Sir Philip Lloyd-Greame be discharged from the Select Committee.

Ordered, that Lieut.-Colonel Assheton Pownall be added to the Committee.—[Colonel Gibbs.]

The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir E. Cornwall), pursuant to the Order of the House of 19th October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

Mr. PENNEFATHER: I put a question to the Secretary of State for War last week and, in consequence of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I gave notice that I would raise the matter on the adjournment to-night. I was given to understand that it would be convenient if I raised the matter to-night. I now learn to my regret that it is inconvenient for the Minister to be present, and for that reason I beg to give notice that I propose to refer to the question again on Wednesday night.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Ten minutes before Nine o'clock.